The Case FOR Owens

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, let me preface this by saying that I'm prettys ure that I hate T.O. and the Eagles pretty equally. I'm writing this because I have not really heard one person, here or in the media, stick up for the guy. So, I'm going to do my best. I will say that I believe that some of this argument is valid, but I will not say that I think T.O. should sit out or miss any camp. And, I'm not saying that I think professional athletes are underpaid, or taken advantage of, or anything of the sort. But here goes:

First of all, I think the first place to start is to assess the way that the NFL contracts work. The NFL is the only sports league, to my knowledge, that does not have guaranteed contracts for any players. It's also the league in which players put their bodies on the line more than any other. I think the NFL Players Union really messed that up. This league generates more money than any other in the country, by far, and the players see the smallest slice of it. So, the way the system is set up, players are held to their contracts, but Owners are not. Now, something about this does seem intrinsically unfair to me. I do not pity owners, who have more money than almost anyone in the country, who are able to cut people loose from the contracts, yet hold them to the contracts whenever they want. I don't know, but I think that this seems unfair on some level.

Next, lets get specific. T.O. IS underpaid. That is a fact. He is not in the highest 20 paid WR's in the league. Coles got 3 million more in guaranteed money than T.O. did when he signed with the Skins. Second, T.O. is arguable the best player on the Eagles, and he is no less than the second best player. Shouldn't the Eagles do what they can to keep him happy? If T.O. came and said, "hey guys, I'm underpaid, what can you do about this?" Shouldn't the Eagles have said, "ok, T.O., you are underpaid, let's see what we can do." Should they have "drawn a line in the sand" like every analyst loves to point out they did?

Finally, let me point out that the Eagles DO HAVE the money. They have the cap room and the funds. The Eagles are refusing to re-negotiate based on "principle." Is that honorable, or just stubborn? Should we feel blessed to see an owner, who has multi-millions, refuse to play an equally overpaid athlete?

In conclusion, I guess I see where the Eagles should have paid T.O. what he's worth. The Eagles do not deny that he is worth more than he is paid. They simply refuse to re-do his contract. I don't think T.O. is breaking any rules. The way the system is set up, contracts are guaranteed for owners, but not for players. Part of that system, inherent in it really, is that the players only weapon is to hold out. There is nothing person there, that is simply the way the business works. Again, I'm not saying that I side with either party. But I will say that the Eagles could have paid him what he was worth and avoided the whole situation to start.

I don't know that this will change any minds, but I hope it can instigate a good conversation.

[ciresolstice]

^ I think you did that pretty well, nice job, pointed out some good things if a case were to be made.

Only part that kinda throws that stuff out of the window is the fact TO signed a contract...if he was/is of that value or worth, and I dont deny that he isn't, he and his agent should have demanded more then equal to his value/skillset instead of after the fact a year later...Unless I missed something.

I was watching NFL network..and I'm not sure if this can be done..but many are saying it's how it's being done..strong arming your team by using the media..vs handling it behind closed doors and brining it to your employer and negotiating that way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Originally posted by ciresolstice
^ I think you did that pretty well, nice job, pointed out some good things if a case were to be made.

Only part that kinda throws that stuff out of the window is the fact TO signed a contract...if he was/is of that value or worth, and I dont deny that he isn't, he and his agent should have demanded more then equal to his value/skillset instead of after the fact a year later...Unless I missed something.

I was watching NFL network..and I'm not sure if this can be done..but many are saying it's how it's being done..strong arming your team by using the media..vs handling it behind closed doors and brining it to your employer and negotiating that way.

I guess the best reply I can make to this is two fold. First, remeber T.O.'s situation when he signed that contract and the fact that his agent now was not his agent then. Second, I think you can say that if a team can cut him for "underperforming" after one year, he can ask to renegotiate after out-performing that contract.

Again, just throwing it out there.

[Grizz]

My biggest complaint about players wanting to re-negotiate, is they signed a contract for what they thought they were worth at that time. If a team gives a player say a 7 yr contract, I doubt they think they will be great all 7 yrs. (They may hope he does, but realisticly knows they won't) I believe a teams hopes that a player will be good for the entire contract, but in reality knows they probably won't. This is why agents get the bulk of the money up front. If a player goes out and has a good/great year they think they deserve more. What would of happend if T.O. had a bad year. Should the eagle's re-negotiate to get back some of the signing bonus? Now I realize that players can be cut at anytime therefore losing out on their salaries, but you and I can also be let go from our jobs at anytime and we didn't get a multi-million dollar signing bonus. If the average guy does his job well he is lucky to get a raise.
I think the Eagle's are right and in no way should the give T.O. more.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Grizz
My biggest complaint about players wanting to re-negotiate, is they signed a contract for what they thought they were worth at that time. If a team gives a player say a 7 yr contract, I doubt they think they will be great all 7 yrs. (They may hope he does, but realisticly knows they won't) I believe a teams hopes that a player will be good for the entire contract, but in reality knows they probably won't. This is why agents get the bulk of the money up front. If a player goes out and has a good/great year they think they deserve more. What would of happend if T.O. had a bad year. Should the eagle's re-negotiate to get back some of the signing bonus? Now I realize that players can be cut at anytime therefore losing out on their salaries, but you and I can also be let go from our jobs at anytime and we didn't get a multi-million dollar signing bonus. If the average guy does his job well he is lucky to get a raise.
I think the Eagle's are right and in no way should the give T.O. more.

I keep replying mostly because I feel like I didn't get the point the point across. I guess the best argument is that it is unfair to say that a player can be cut after one year, but cannot re-negotiate. If T.O. got a bad year, or if he could not have come back after that injury, the Eagles could have cut him and paid him nothing. It boils down to: "Is it fair that they can cut him off after one year, but he can't re-up after one year?"

And I must say again, please do not read into me believing T.O. is not a brat, or that he should sit out.

[Grizz]

I do believe it "fair" to cut someone after one yr. T.O got a 9 million signing bonus for year 1. There for the Eagle's got great value for that bonus. If he had sucked and they cut him, T.O would have gotten value out of it. Plus as we've seen before, some other team would pick him up and give him another signing bonus. Maybe not as large, but still a considerable amount

[ummagumma]

Tulane Skins fan - You don't seem to have a grasp for the game agents play with contracts (and GM's for that matter). Everything is about the signing bonus. And it's always about getting the next signing bonus. Fair has nothing to do with it since players know they can be cut, they ask for signing bonuses that are theirs to keep, no matter what happens. The GM's want low season salaries to help out the cap.

Fair also doesn't matter because the players agreed to it and their agents take advantage of it. Do you realy think players sign contracts with a 5th year salary of $15M really expect to get that chunk of change? Of course not, they know the team will cut them and then they can sign a new contract with a new signing bonus.

Because players get these signing bonuses it totally throws out your statement about the Eagles paying him nothing. They apid him a signing bonus. He wants a new contract? Pay back the signing bonus. There is nothing unfair about it.

[Eparadox]

Originally posted by ciresolstice


I was watching NFL network..and I'm not sure if this can be done..but many are saying it's how it's being done..strong arming your team by using the media..vs handling it behind closed doors and brining it to your employer and negotiating that way.

I absolutely agree with this...if TO had been more professional, and privately asked the team to judge his current contract and performance level, then they would have given him some more cash...but he was an arse about the situation, and disrespected their leader (McNabb), and the organization in the media. He no longer deserves another dime.

[jimster]

Owens CHOSE to play football.
Owens CHOSE his agents.
Owens CHOSE to sign a contract.
He made over $9 mil last year and now he's upset because he's being expected to be held responsible for HIS commitments. Yeah, he's a victim alright.

[iheartskins]

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showt...46#post1488346

When you sign a contract you agree to what you are going to be willing to be paid for your performance. Both sides take risks and are compensated accordingly.

This kind of strong arming by players really only happens in sports. Compare what's going on with Sandy Weill at Citigroup.

In other words, I have no sympathy for TO at all. If he thought he was worth more, then he should have asked for it while he and the team were negotiating.

[grego]

i agree with jimster and many of the sentiments above. one other thing to keep in mind is that if players started renegotiating contracts every year, you couldnt put together a team. there is a salary cap, voted for by the players themselves, that keeps owners from paying premium prices for every player they would like. if owens and others want to renegotiate every year, you would violate the cap. teams structure deals in ways that they know how much they can pay this player or that player however much each year. and, renegotiating after one year a contract that you chose to sign is BS.

besides, i heard yesterday that it was basically a 2 year deal in how it was set up anyhow, and this was understood by both sides. anything to that?

[ciresolstice]

Originally posted by grego
i agree with jimster and many of the sentiments above. one other thing to keep in mind is that if players started renegotiating contracts every year, you couldnt put together a team. there is a salary cap, voted for by the players themselves, that keeps owners from paying premium prices for every player they would like. if owens and others want to renegotiate every year, you would violate the cap. teams structure deals in ways that they know how much they can pay this player or that player however much each year. and, renegotiating after one year a contract that you chose to sign is BS.

besides, i heard yesterday that it was basically a 2 year deal in how it was set up anyhow, and this was understood by both sides. anything to that?

^^^ makes plenty of sense, if players could do that every season it would be a complete/total mess to deal with. In other words, the line has to be drawn somewhere to have some structure and stability in those dealings.

Also as stated earlier by myself and another extremer, far as negotiating your worth when he was to be signed/contract dealings, maybe there should have been(if there wasn't) having bonuses in place for performance, high goals to reach..say over 12 TD's in the reg. season, or so many YAC average. I don't know. Do they still do this? Incentives I guess the term would be and not bonus...extra money in some clause in the contract to be made that kicks in if certain goals are reached? Then you would be somewhat compensated for having an overachieving season.

[ATLANTASKINSFAN]

Originally posted by Tulane Skins Fan



I keep replying mostly because I feel like I didn't get the point the point across. I guess the best argument is that it is unfair to say that a player can be cut after one year, but cannot re-negotiate. If T.O. got a bad year, or if he could not have come back after that injury, the Eagles could have cut him and paid him nothing. It boils down to: "Is it fair that they can cut him off after one year, but he can't re-up after one year?"

And I must say again, please do not read into me believing T.O. is not a brat, or that he should sit out.

I think one thing people forget is the signing bonus. This is up front compensation. If you sign a seven year deal with a big signing bonus and are cut after 1 season you get to keep this. Therefore the team signed you for 7 years gave you money upfront and cut you. You still get to keep that part.

[stupidsuck]

Originally posted by Tulane Skins Fan


I guess the best reply I can make to this is two fold. First, remeber T.O.'s situation when he signed that contract and the fact that his agent now was not his agent then. Second, I think you can say that if a team can cut him for "underperforming" after one year, he can ask to renegotiate after out-performing that contract.

Again, just throwing it out there.

I see what you're saying here, and I agree to it to some extent, but if this is to apply to all NFL players then there should be nothing but 1 year contracts, beacuse apparently signing a multiyear deal really means nothing to either camp.

[Renegade7]

If TO wins, it'll be the end of the NFL. Everyone will begin demanding a new contract and destroy everything. I don't care who's right or who's wrong, TO can't win this. He can't.