HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Droughns has left the Clowns' offseason conditioning program and is threatening to hold out if he doesn't get a new deal. Says the team promised him one but now wants to wait until they see how he does. http://www.cleveland.com/browns/plaindeale...94283272150.xml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Couldn't happen to a better team!Go Stains! (Go away, that is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 I'm just amused by the sheer "Bungle-esque" nature of the situation. I mean, they traded for Droughns. If they have this little confidence in Reuben...why did they give up 2 players to get him??? This is the same kind of front office ding-dongery you would have expected out of us a few years back. Glad to see that Cleveburg is picking up where we left off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 I'm just amused by the sheer "Bungle-esque" nature of the situation. I mean, they traded for Droughns. If they have this little confidence in Reuben...why did they give up 2 players to get him??? This is the same kind of front office ding-dongery you would have expected out of us a few years back. Glad to see that Cleveburg is picking up where we left off... Addition by subtraction? The guys they lost to denver kinda uh sucked last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Addition by subtraction? The guys they lost to denver kinda uh sucked last year. True...but then why not just cut them? Why trade them for someone you don't have enough confidence in to offer a new deal? Redoing a contract for someone you trade for is pretty much standard procedure, after all. And they knew going in that he wanted a new contract; that was his beef with Denver, after all. Nah, this is just goofy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Addition by subtraction? The guys they lost to denver kinda uh sucked last year.True...but then why not just cut them? Why trade them for someone you don't have enough confidence in to offer a new deal? Redoing a contract for someone you trade for is pretty much standard procedure, after all. And they knew going in that he wanted a new contract; that was his beef with Denver, after all. Nah, this is just goofy... Remember, we are talking about the city that caught fire to a large body of water....... This is normal up there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 OK, this is one thing I hate about football. The constant appeasement for stupid demands.New rules for the CBA:- When you sign a contract, you play through it.- You refuse to play? Fine. Sit. Then after the contract expires, the NFL suspends you one full season.- Or, the NFL should institute arbitration? That's a different costly route, but at least we can avoid this crap. Ownership needs more spine -- like the current congressional GOP. The more owners appease this type of attitude, the more conflict there will be with the Players Union (which is starting to get a case of "big balls") and Ownership, the more the NFL will trend on the same broken glass MLB had in the early 90s. I honestly believe we'll see a players strike within the next 3-4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 OK, this is one thing I hate about football. The constant appeasement for stupid demands. Oh, I agree...and to the NFL's credit it seems teams aren't giving into to being "Rosenhaused" this time around. But I don't think that applies in Droughns' case. Here's a guy who performed last year and wanted to be paid (can you say "Rudi Johnson"?), his current team (Denver) didn't want to pay, he asked to be traded, Denver obliged, and Cleveland told him they would give him a new deal. Now they change their mind. IMHO, he has every right to tell them to take their offseason program and shove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 I've always maintained the position that if you sign a contract, you play. If you don't like it, or expecting a big season down the line, then don't sign it or ask for more during negotiations. Everyone has to get their foot in the door and establish themselves before becoming elite. This is exactly what I was talking about.The NFL has allowed this for a few years now, and rookie draft contracts are way out of hand right now.All, as Josh-the-football-great (that's what they call me) has philosophized; the NFL is on a course for DOOM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuffle4Ever Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Droughn's situation is a little bit different, though, because he changed positions since signing that deal. His original deal was in line with what a fullback gets paid to block and take some goal line carries, but not in line with what a starting halfback gets paid. He ended the season with over 1000 yards last season and is going to compete to be the #1 halfback for the Browns this year. I agree with your ideals, Kirkendall, but this is one of those rare exceptions where the greedy player actually has a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Don't get me wrong, I understand Droughns position. I do. Hell, if I were promoted to PC Tech 2, I'd want the compensation for it.But there shouldn't be exceptions either; exceptions lead towards hypocrisy and degradation of credibility promoting, for example, hold-outs. The NFL needs to run a tighter ship for the sole purpose of a better future. That's all. They need to emphasize the NFL made them and will carry on with, or without them. Of course, all this comes on the speculation (all on my part) that the NFL/Union will clash and clash hard. Why? All because of players wanting more guaranteed contracts and a bigger piece in the TV revenue pie. Do they deserve it? I don't think so, but perhaps that's the blue collar argument coming out in me. Personally I believe the players union should be abolished. If a union is needed, it's for those who need it. NFL players do NOT need it. MLB players do NOT need it. NHL players do NOT need it. NBA players do NOT need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Of course, all this comes on the speculation (all on my part) that the NFL/Union will clash and clash hard. Why? All because of players wanting more guaranteed contracts and a bigger piece in the TV revenue pie. Do they deserve it? I don't think so, but perhaps that's the blue collar argument coming out in me. Personally I believe the players union should be abolished. If a union is needed, it's for those who need it. NFL players do NOT need it. MLB players do NOT need it. NHL players do NOT need it. NBA players do NOT need it. Greg Easterbrook took on this topic in his latest TMQ column. Needles to say I agree with him and not you http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8419088(April 26, 2005) -- A while ago Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement between management and the NFL Players Association weren't going particularly well. Recently there have been hints of progress. Let me spell out two basic reasons the league's new labor deal may go a lot more smoothly than many commentators expect: $44 million and $85 million. The first number is the level of the NFL's initial salary cap, imposed in 1993, converted into current dollars. The second number is this year's salary cap. This means that in the last dozen years, average per-team payments to NFL players almost doubled in real-dollar terms. (Actual spending on players is slightly different from the salary-cap ceiling, but tracks it closely.) Total NFL spending on players is up since 1993 by a much larger value than average per-team spending, because there are now four more franchises, meaning four more clubs maxing out their salary caps. In 1993, in the dawn of the salary-cap era, NFL teams paid about $1.2 billion, in today's dollars, to players. In 2005, NFL teams will pay about $2.7 billion to players. Total monies disbursed to players are thus up 125 percent in just 12 seasons. This is nothing short of spectacular. Say what you will about the National Football League -- too crazy, too win-at-all-costs, too many taxpayer-funded stadiums ... there are loads of possible objections -- the NFL beats all other sports combined for being a well-run business. Franchises are financially stable; television ratings stay strong while ratings of other team sports falter; gate attendance sets a record every year; merchandising is so efficient it's hard to escape NFL gear. Popularity and financial stability mean ever-rising real-dollar payments to players. The NFL Players Association is a big part of this success: Just as the league is the best-run business in sports, the NFL Players Association is the best-run union. While baseball players strike, basketball players punch out their own fans and professional hockey misses an entire season, the NFL Players Association has insured high-quality game after high-quality game after high-quality game, with positive player-fan relations and surely a higher percentage of good-citizen behavior than is found among groups of young men in other walks of life. Because the NFLPA has a clear understanding of how incredibly lucrative the last dozen years have been to NFL athletes, TMQ is betting that keeping the existing labor peace will turn out to be more doable than many commentators now say. Although, of course, the players will bargain to increase their share as much as possible. Note to NFL owners: The existing structure of the league serves you well, too, so why not leave it in place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 If the Browns actually did say what Rueben says they said, then I'm with him on holding out for what was promised. If he's just squalling for a little more cash after he has signed a contract, then of course I say screw HIM!This doesn't sound like him though. He doesn't have a history of doing such things that I know of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 It may well be a "who's right and who's wrong argument" amongst the players and owners or as to justify why someone "needs" (or selfishly wants). But it doesn't resolve the fact a work shortage is very possible. I know Easterbrook's stuff (most of it from New Republic and publications), and enjoy most of his NFL stuff (even after he got fired for referencing jews from ESPN), but in this case, I have to take exception. He's advocating a very risky maneuver I highly doubt the owners and NFL would consent to. I figure though on one hand, the NFL looks at the NHL and might give/take concessions. Then again, players might look at baseball and compare and demand a hellva lot more.Again, I'm speculating. Hey, at least we're not talking about the 2008 NFL draft! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 But it doesn't resolve the fact a work shortage is very possible. Possible? Yes. But I doubt it. Football is simply too damn lucrative for all concerned (a situation that isn't true of either baseball or hockey) as Easterbrook points out. Moreover, there are still years left to work out a deal. (There's less to the "uncapped" year in 2007 than meets the eye; there are all sorts of limitations on signings buried in the current CBA for such an eventuality; it wouldn't be the free-for-all it sounds like.) I've little doubt they'll find a way to do a new deal.If they don't, of course, it will all be Mike Brown's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.