Rumors of an Xavien Howard Holdout

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The contracts that the players (and the teams!) sign has exactly those injury allowances written into it.

We shouldn't argue in favor of a system where if the team screws over a player within the rules, the rules are the rules and business is business, but when the player screws over the team within the rules, now the player needs to suck it up and live up to their end of the bargain.

I don’t view cutting a player that is underperforming as screwing a player.  I see the team’s ability to cut players before the expiration of their contract as part of the contract.  OTOH, faking an injury or giving less than 100% as not acting fair or in good faith.

Are there things teams do that is not in good faith?  Yes, and when that happens most fans side with the player.  Examples of bad faith by a team would include not giving a player a fair opportunity to hit performance bonuses, treating an injury incurred while working out during the offseason as non-football.  But cutting a player or not reworking a contract early is not bad faith.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Right.  Also, it's like not Applebees where the server IS the product.  Xavien Howard is the product.

No, football is the product.  Howard is a replaceable part.  No one player is irreplaceable. Plenty of players that are significantly more important to football have left the game.  You might argue that the NFL’s product diminished a little the day players like Peyton, Brees or Marino retired. But to whatever extent it was extremely minor, the product remained.  If Howard fell off the face of the earth, it would not register as at all significant to the game.

[Spider-Dan]

I don’t view cutting a player that is underperforming as screwing a player.  I see the team’s ability to cut players before the expiration of their contract as part of the contract.  OTOH, faking an injury or giving less than 100% as not acting fair or in good faith.

I'm sure we can both agree that professional athletes play while impaired all the time (the old "Are you hurt or are you injured?" question).  I don't fault a player for choosing not to play while hurt.

Now, just to clarify: I think the Dolphins took the correct action in this situation.  They could have traded X like they traded Minkah, which I was against then and would be against now.  The brass found a way to make both sides happy.  That's how negotiations should work.

In a league like MLB or the NBA where contracts are guaranteed, if a player wants more money mid-contract, I usually don't have a lot of sympathy for them.  But in the NFL where they can cut your ass at any time, I think every player should take full advantage of the rules as worded.

[Dolphster]

I don't think everyone should have exactly the same income, but I do believe that no one working full-time should be expected to survive on less than a living wage.  So to the extent that NFL teams are paying full-time employees so little that a) they need another job to make ends meet or b) they qualify for government assistance, I do think that non-player employees should make more.

However, I'm not sure how relevant the question is, because I don't think that raise should come out of the portion of revenue allocated to players; it should come out of the ownership side.

Okay, I can understand that.  Honestly, I'm not particularly well versed in the specifics of how the theory of socialism works regarding the everyone having the same income versus living wage thing works so I think I understand better now where you are with your beliefs.  We are still pretty far apart in philosophies, but I appreciate you giving me a serious answer that helps me to understand. 

And yeah, I know my questions was only slightly relevant my question was, but the topic was at least in the same ballpark so I wanted to get your thoughts.  And it isn't as if any of us on here are particularly good about keeping threads right on track.  LOL  I get a kick out of it sometimes to see how far off topic threads get sometimes. 

[pondwater]

I'm sure we can both agree that professional athletes play while impaired all the time (the old "Are you hurt or are you injured?" question).  I don't fault a player for choosing not to play while hurt.

Now, just to clarify: I think the Dolphins took the correct action in this situation.  They could have traded X like they traded Minkah, which I was against then and would be against now.  The brass found a way to make both sides happy.  That's how negotiations should work.

In a league like MLB or the NBA where contracts are guaranteed, if a player wants more money mid-contract, I usually don't have a lot of sympathy for them.  But in the NFL where they can cut your ass at any time, I think every player should take full advantage of the rules as worded.

Amazing how you complain about the evil rich people. And this poor the poor guy is only making around $15 million a year. Multiple times what you'll probably make in your entire life. Sounds like crybaby Xavian gots him a lil' privilege and entitlement going on.

[Spider-Dan]

Okay, I can understand that.  Honestly, I'm not particularly well versed in the specifics of how the theory of socialism works regarding the everyone having the same income versus living wage thing works so I think I understand better now where you are with your beliefs.  We are still pretty far apart in philosophies, but I appreciate you giving me a serious answer that helps me to understand.

The belief that everyone should have the same income is more similar to communism, which - despite the screaming on political ads - is not remotely the same thing as socialism.  The gap between socialism and communism is as big as the gap between "small government" in America and "small government" in Somalia.

In any case, I think this discussion falls more into the realm of management vs. labor on the terms of compensation, which is inherently a capitalistic premise.  The speed with which many Americans rush to support billionaire owners over millionaire players is disappointing, but not surprising.

[Spider-Dan]

Amazing how you complain about the evil rich people. And this poor the poor guy is only making around $15 million a year. Multiple times what you'll probably make in your entire life.

The man signing his checks makes many times more than that.
Gotta keep your priorities aligned!

[pondwater]

The man signing his checks makes many times more than that.
Gotta keep your priorities aligned!

The funny part is that they both probably use many of the same tax loopholes. Jokes on you.

[Spider-Dan]

Don't get it twisted: I would like to see both Xavien Howard and Stephen Ross paying a LOT more in taxes.
But I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  All other things being equal, I support labor over management.

[pondwater]

All other things being equal, I support labor over management.

It's not a competition.

[ArtieChokePhin]

There sure have been times that some teams in the NFL aren't very profitable, but I think you have to look at investment value as the profit here. Even last year, with the pandemic going on and no butts (or very few butts anyway) in seats, the valuation of all 32 NFL franchises increased by an average of 7% in 2020.

If there is red ink on the ledger, it's disappearing ink... 

Value is one thing.  Revenue vs expenses is what I was referring to.  And there are several teams in all major sports that are small market and barely turn a profit each year.

[Spider-Dan]

Value is one thing.  Revenue vs expenses is what I was referring to.  And there are several teams in all major sports that are small market and barely turn a profit each year.

Any unsatisfied owner of a small market, "low profit" team can sell that team for (depending on the league) a BILLION+ dollars in instant profit.

That's not to say I accept the "low profit small market teams" framing - I don't, and the one team in the smallest North American pro sports market also happens to be the same team with open books that conclusively refute that "low profit" claim - but even if we stipulate that it's true, if you don't want to afford the upkeep on a MASSIVELY appreciating asset, then sell it and cash out.

Small market owners will get no tears from me.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The funny part is that they both probably use many of the same tax loopholes. Jokes on you.

Not likely.  The player is paying taxes on his earnings (both salary and endorsements)   Granted if he invests those earnings, he can use the same tax evasion methods to avoid taxes on the investment earnings. 

Howard probably pays more in taxes than Ross.  Brady probably pays more in taxes than Kraft.

[Sunstroke]

Right.  Also, it's like not Applebees where the server IS the product.  Xavien Howard is the product.

The server at Applebees is the product? I thought my Bourbon Street steak was the product...

[EDGECRUSHER]

Any unsatisfied owner of a small market, "low profit" team can sell that team for (depending on the league) a BILLION+ dollars in instant profit.

That's not to say I accept the "low profit small market teams" framing - I don't, and the one team in the smallest North American pro sports market also happens to be the same team with open books that conclusively refute that "low profit" claim - but even if we stipulate that it's true, if you don't want to afford the upkeep on a MASSIVELY appreciating asset, then sell it and cash out.

Small market owners will get no tears from me.

That's why what Derek Jeter did with the Marlins was so disgraceful. Basically, bought the team with a majority of his net worth (as well as the other owners) and immediately started gutting it and selling assets to lower all costs, even knowing that the value of the franchise would go up every year. He made the onfield product suffer greatly so that they could recoup some of their "losses".

It's an absolute monopoly and no owners get any sympathy from me. I only care about contract finances due to the salary cap, otherwise I wouldn't care at all.