safetyblitz


The 1 year deal is also good for Hamilton, if last year was just a fluke then we are not stuck with a long term contract.  Now that the teams know about him they will prepare for him better.
No, teams are never "stuck" with a long term contract: players can be released at any time. The only upside to a short contract for the team is if the player has short-term leverage and the team thinks they'll be able to re-sign him for less on his next contract.

Crash


The 1 year deal is also good for Hamilton, if last year was just a fluke then we are not stuck with a long term contract.  Now that the teams know about him they will prepare for him better.
Nobody is ever stuck with a long term contract in the CFL. Every one of them benefit the team and not the player.

BillyDee87


The 1 year deal is also good for Hamilton, if last year was just a fluke then we are not stuck with a long term contract.  Now that the teams know about him they will prepare for him better.
Nobody is ever stuck with a long term contract in the CFL. Every one of them benefit the team and not the player.
If that were true, why would any player ever sign a contract?  The players must get some benefit.  Conversely, the team must get some benefit as well.

It would seem that they players must value the $$$ they get more than the energy they have to expend to play the game. Otherwise they wouldn't enter into the trade. (of $$ for energy or time or whatever)  And, conversely, the team must value the effort the players give more than the $$$ they have to pay them or the team wouldn't enter into the trade either.

Seems like a win-win to me.  Each side trades something they value less for something they value more. 
"For the sake of humanity" is always the credo of tyranny.

Crash


The 1 year deal is also good for Hamilton, if last year was just a fluke then we are not stuck with a long term contract.  Now that the teams know about him they will prepare for him better.
Nobody is ever stuck with a long term contract in the CFL. Every one of them benefit the team and not the player.
If that were true, why would any player ever sign a contract?  The players must get some benefit.  Conversely, the team must get some benefit as well.

It would seem that they players must value the $$$ they get more than the energy they have to expend to play the game. Otherwise they wouldn't enter into the trade. (of $$ for energy or time or whatever)  And, conversely, the team must value the effort the players give more than the $$$ they have to pay them or the team wouldn't enter into the trade either.

Seems like a win-win to me.  Each side trades something they value less for something they value more.
In the past GMs have overbid on players offering them longer deals only to cut them after 1 year of subpar performance (in relation to the contract) or ask them to renegotiate.

If you offer a player 150k on a 1 year deal in free agency that player may not want to leave their current situation. Offer it on a 3 year deal and all of the sudden the player sees it as a better deal and may take it. After year 1 the team tells the player to take a pay cut or get released.

Happens all the time.

That's one of the reasons you're starting to see 1 year deals and a fantasy football mentality in the CFL now. Players above the minimum generally bet on themselves to perform and get more money next year, don't perform and expect a pay reduction.

With the next CBA the players really need to fight for some sort of guarantee in a contract, even 30% - something that will keep GM's honest when negotiating.

BillyDee87

Quote
With the next CBA the players really need to fight for some sort of guarantee in a contract, even 30% - something that will keep GM's honest when negotiating.

Are any of the issues you noted hidden from the players or GMs prior to entering into a contract or negotiation?  What makes you think that GMs are dishonest or acting in bad faith?  Do you have any proof of this?  As per the current Ontario min. wage hike issue confirms, any interference in the private negotiations between parties by a non-party actor results in negative outcomes for those the interference is intended to protect.  (i.e. Just as a high min. wage is a disadvantage to low skilled, low education, low work experience workers, [you know, the folks that really could use a job.  Any job to get their foot into the working world and guaranteeing an opportunity to advance they otherwise wouldn't have had], contract offers in the CFL under your suggested guarantee will be lowered to off-set the risk of guarantee in the CBA).

That is leaving out the fact that by putting in a guarantee, a player who is released for poor-performance will have to continue to get paid, even if they never play a down for the team.  How can the team be saddled with this burden when in many cases they cannot know how well a player will perform for them prior to signing that player?  Or maybe, teams will take steps to relegate a player to the practice squad or some similar situation until the term of the guarantee has expired, thereby getting some value for their 30%, rather than an outright release to the player that allows them to catch on to another team that may want them. 

I think you should reconsider your position on this.  Your solution hurts everyone; the team, the players and ultimately the fans by the lower quality product that will result.

Crash

Quote
With the next CBA the players really need to fight for some sort of guarantee in a contract, even 30% - something that will keep GM's honest when negotiating.

Are any of the issues you noted hidden from the players or GMs prior to entering into a contract or negotiation?  What makes you think that GMs are dishonest or acting in bad faith?  Do you have any proof of this?  As per the current Ontario min. wage hike issue confirms, any interference in the private negotiations between parties by a non-party actor results in negative outcomes for those the interference is intended to protect.  (i.e. Just as a high min. wage is a disadvantage to low skilled, low education, low work experience workers, [you know, the folks that really could use a job.  Any job to get their foot into the working world and guaranteeing an opportunity to advance they otherwise wouldn't have had], contract offers in the CFL under your suggested guarantee will be lowered to off-set the risk of guarantee in the CBA).

That is leaving out the fact that by putting in a guarantee, a player who is released for poor-performance will have to continue to get paid, even if they never play a down for the team.  How can the team be saddled with this burden when in many cases they cannot know how well a player will perform for them prior to signing that player?  Or maybe, teams will take steps to relegate a player to the practice squad or some similar situation until the term of the guarantee has expired, thereby getting some value for their 30%, rather than an outright release to the player that allows them to catch on to another team that may want them.  

I think you should reconsider your position on this.  Your solution hurts everyone; the team, the players and ultimately the fans by the lower quality product that will result.
The majority of North American sports leagues have some sort of guarantee in their contracts.
I'm not going to get into a minimum wage debate with with but I will say this - Why should a team be saddled with the burden of paying a portion of a contract they entered in to?
My response would be: Why should a player get ZERO of a contract they entered into? If a player signs a 2-3 year deal there does need to be (in my opinion) a guarantee on both sides that the contract will be honoured.

Under the current set up every player is essentially on a 1 year deal for the team purposes, yet for the purpose of the player they are "locked in" to whatever is signed as long as the team is ok with the terms.

Lets use a random player as an example. Greg Ellingson signs a big deal, which up to this point he's earned. Let's say he has a brutal year, 500 yards and drops everything in sight. Ottawa gets out of the deal and it costs them $0. Lets go a step further and say no team in the league picks him up - injury history, not playing well, whatever. How is that fair to the player?

You ask if I have proof that a GM acted in bad faith? depends how you look at it. Obillovich signed many of his first year free agents to 2+1 year deals at the league minimum. You can argue that the player gets a chance, then when the player becomes the best returner/receiver in the league (Chris Williams) the team gets a bargain.

Bad faith or not CFL contracts benefit the team, in other leagues the guarantee is taken into consideration when signing the deal - does that mean less money is offered? possibly. But I think many players would take a bit less as a guarantee over a contract that the team never has to pay. After uprooting your family and moving cross country from Calgary to Montreal for a 3 year contract - getting cut with zero money after 1 year doesn't seem like a great deal for the player does it?

BillyDee87

Quote
How is that fair to the player?

Because no terms of the agreed upon contract were hidden from the player before or when they signed.

And, it is a great deal for the player when they play out the contract they sign and are eligible for free-agency and can bargain with any team in the league for what they feel they are worth, often much much more than the original contract.  See: Zack Collaros from Argos to Hamilton.

If you only look at it from the point of view of a player who gets cut and doesn't get picked up, you, in bad faith, leave out the 90% of other players who benefit.  Many who make excellent money.

Crash

Quote
How is that fair to the player?

Because no terms of the agreed upon contract were hidden from the player before or when they signed.

And, it is a great deal for the player when they play out the contract they sign and are eligible for free-agency and can bargain with any team in the league for what they feel they are worth, often much much more than the original contract.  See: Zack Collaros from Argos to Hamilton.

If you only look at it from the point of view of a player who gets cut and doesn't get picked up, you, in bad faith, leave out the 90% of other players who benefit.  Many who make excellent money.
Just because the terms are laid out up front (4 year contract but we can cut out without compensation at any time) doesn't mean its fair. Its the terms of CFL contracts per the current CBA.

Agree to disagree, but I don't see how the current non-guaranteeing of contracts benefits anybody other than the team(s)

safetyblitz

Just because the terms are laid out up front (4 year contract but we can cut out without compensation at any time) doesn't mean its fair. Its the terms of CFL contracts per the current CBA.
Exactly. And that is without even getting into the muddier waters about monopoly power in pro sports, or the legal concept of "unconscionable contract".

BillyDee87

Just because the terms are laid out up front (4 year contract but we can cut out without compensation at any time) doesn't mean its fair. Its the terms of CFL contracts per the current CBA.
Exactly. And that is without even getting into the muddier waters about monopoly power in pro sports, or the legal concept of "unconscionable contract".
Please define monopoly power in pro sports.  Because - Arena league, CFL, NFL, soon to be XFL or any number of semi-pro leagues in the US and Canada and Mexico.  How about the European pro football leagues that exist?  So, there's that.

And, please show me what would be considered as so unjust and so one sided in power to attract court intervention in any pro sports contract.  Just because you look it up on the internet does not make it applicable to your argument.

Just because you THINK things are unfair does not mean that they are.  How about looking at this from the perspective of a team that trains, coaches, teaches and inspires a player to go from average to MOP only to have that player leave to free-agency.  How is that fair to the team?  There should be a 30% guarantee to the team if a player leaves in free-agency.  The CBA needs something to keep players honest when they are receiving top notch instruction then taking those skills to other teams. (sarcasm off)

 

safetyblitz

Just because you THINK things are unfair does not mean that they are.
I didn't even assert that the status quo is unfair. *You* asserted that a contract is always fair by definition as long as it was agreed to with none of the terms hidden, and I pointed out that that isn't true, or more precisely, that there are circumstances where such contracts are legally unenforceable.

BillyDee87

Your assertion was based upon a previous post whose subject was FAIRNESS.

I guess we agree to disagree.
 


Users Online

123 Guests, 6 Users (15 Spiders, 1 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
schmenger, rpaege, AlsPal, J5V, MrLucky, Google (14), Baidu

Most Online Today: 177. Most Online Ever: 489 (Nov 26 2017, 08:38 PM)