Chad Johnson won't attend team functions,demands trade

Just read article on NFL.com that says Boldin wants out now.

 

Boldin would be great to pick up. I'd trade a second or third round pick and give him a 5 year/ 45 mil/ 15 guaranteed deal.

 

Playing hard ball is a waste of time and energy. What principle are yo really standing up for; seriously. Is it commitment? Is it a contract? versus the other principle, which is every person has the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

No contest in my opinon.

Now look at the outcomes.

A) Unhappy player plays for you, maybe some players that would have rocked the boat, keep quiet.
B) Player is happy somewhere else, you get a happy player to play for you

The decision is a no brainer in my opinion. What is the real principle here. Seriously. Maybe I'm missing it. But to me, if you want to stand up for principles here, then you need to look at the big picture. Is the outcome really worth it. Are you really making an important statement. Is it a truth, is it self evident? I don't think commitment to a contract is this important to take a detrimental stand for it.

 

Phi,
Early on, I'd agree with you, and on an individual basis, you're right, it doesn't make sense. But in a broader sense, across the NFL, look at how many players are essentially whining their way out of the contracts that they themselves agreed to. Chad Johnson, T.O, Urlacher, Briggs, the list could probably go on indefinitely if I spent some time on it. Players shouldn't have the ability to jump ship like this. It's bad for the teams if every player gets to leave. This is why teams want to sign quality players to long deals, so that they can keep them. It's bad for teams to lose their most talented players. Not just for the individual team, it's bad for the NFL as a whole. Fans like it when players stay on their teams for the long run, if players constantly leave, it's bad for the fan base. Mostly, it's important to teams that their contracts mean something.

I would totally agree with you if it were just the small picture. But in the larger scale, and for the long term, teams shouldn't allow players to do this.

 

If a player signs a long term deal, and the team decides they don't want to honor it anymore, they cut the player. Sure they may take a cap hit or whatever, but the team can decide to end the contract, why cant the players?

 

Some contracts are prevented from doing that. It's all in what you negotiate. You can negotiate your deal to be guaranteed for skill, injury, or cap, or some combination of those above. Players go for larger and larger amounts and give up their guarantees. Teams are very reluctant to make large guarantees, but it happens, or at least happens for parts of base salaries. It's once a contract has been negotiated that it shouldn't be allowed to be broken.

Oddly enough, while typing this, I'm staring at my copy of the CBA, because my exam on it is tomorrow... so hopefully I know what I'm talking about.