digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dallasnews.com

There is absolutely NO loyalty in the NFL

dallasnews.com — As an avid sports fan, especially when it comes to the NFL, reading an article like this makes me sick. If you know anything about Deuce McAllister and his character (a rare thing these days in the sport), you will be outraged at the New Orleans Saints

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • coldman, on 04/16/2008, -2/+54it's a business, always remember that
    • sjl127, on 04/16/2008, -14/+9And this is EXACTLY why I don't follow the NFL at all anymore.
      • Jambi, on 04/16/2008, -6/+6I don't follow it because it's boring to watch most of the time, and the commentators are idiots.
        • sadilak, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1You think NFL Commentators are idiots. The baseball commentators are worse. They talk about everything other than the game.
        • heir0fisildur, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Ah but I don't recall him mentioning baseball, do you?
    • H0mez, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5You do realize every major sport is a business, the worst of them all is the NCAA. They make SO much money off of student athletes. People justify it by saying they are getting a free education. Which you pales in comparison to the amount of money a college make off of mens football or mens basketball athlete.

      So if you don't watch the NFL because its a sports/business, then we can assume that you don't watch any major professional sports, thus making your comment completely useless to the conversation.
      • BurnTees, on 04/16/2008, -6/+4most schools lose money on college sports.
        • neognostic, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I don't know why you are getting dug down, you are correct.
          Murray Sperber, author of "Beer and Circuses and Other Studies of College Sports," estimates that perhaps 90 percent of America's college athletic departments lose money, inevitably because of football. The percentage of male students who play football is actually very small, especially in comparison to the money spent on the sport. But everyone knows that football is untouchable. No one wants to take on the combination of athletic administrators and alumni that keeps the football power structure in place."
          • adrenaline33, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2That study must be a joke. At the D1 level, football funds itself and helps funds most of the other sports, all of which usually lose money. Even at the small school level, football usually pays for itself.
        • BurnTees, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3why am i getting dugg down? for the truth?!?!
    • elliotys, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4You make a good point, but I will say that sometimes doing the right thing for your employees is the best business choice.
    • robbob, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2This is why #2 TV Market, Los Angeles, doesn't have a football team. Fans don't give a $#|7!
      • Duositex, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1No. That isn't why. It's because California already has three other teams.
        • Cerebron, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2The Raiders played out of LA for a while before going back to Oakland of all places.
      • tehnico, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3LA has proved over and over again to be a poor football town. The town "doesn't give a $#|7!" Is a very accurate statement. The only sport that has any success in LA is basketball. Not to watch the game, but it's inside and warm, and the ticket prices are astronomical for court side seats. It's a perfect wine-n-dine sport for clients. They don't watch the game, the only people interested in the game are in the nosebleeds.
    • davidrools, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Does that justify dishonesty and breaching contracts? Businesses need to play by the rules even when it doesn't directly benefit them. Sure they can try to maximize their profits but screwing over your employees doesn't show good business ethics.
      • pixelate, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2It's not screwing over your employees. NFL contracts are collectively bargained (by league representatives and player representatives) to be non-guaranteed. This is part of the reason that NFL teams can compete more effectively year after year compared to their MLB and NBA counterparts, where enormous guaranteed contracts on a mistake player can derail a team for years at a time.

        McAllister is a running back who now has a chronic history of knee problems. Running back has been the position that is easiest to replace (and maintain high productivity for low money) in the league in recent history. He hasn't been cut, he is giving the team an insurance policy that they will be able to pay him based on his on-field performance. Most of our jobs work that way.

        The Saints don't owe him a different type of player contract based on his off-the-field loyalty. He will always be a part of that community, and if he retires today, the Saints will treat him as such-- bank on it. But this article is barking up the wrong tree complaining about restructured contracts in the NFL.
        • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1they are screwing him over because his money was guaranteed. The quality of the O-line in N.O. during the years he was the star is the main reason he now is considered a chronic injury prone runner. They had to guarantee him money to get him to stay and he left good money on the table from much better teams to do so. Stop being so "pro-owner" and be fair. You can't get mad at players for doing the same thing when they realize there "true value" mid-season and want a new deal one year into it if you condone this from owners.
    • mrswirl, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1It's also a business that is supported heavily on the backs of taxpayers in the form of publicly financed stadium deals and tax credits in order to keep a team in a particular city. Whenever an owner wants to boost their profits they just threaten to move the team to another city unless they get whatever they want: such as a percentage of gross concession sales or higher ticket prices year over year.

      It doesn't surprise me in the least that the players are the ones who get the small end of the stick while the owners sit up in their luxury boxes like a Caesar overseeing the games at the Coliseum in Rome.
    • mulletmusketeer, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Even if its a business, teams can still not TRY to screw their players. I do remember one example where a team went out of its way to help a player (injury ended playing career, so Packers brought him on as an assistant coach): http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/06/05/1/
    • Lutremi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1NFL = Not For Long
  • Jambi, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5Sports are a cruel and cutthroat business? Who knew? (see the Seattle Supersonics debacle for another example)
  • arigneysd, on 04/16/2008, -6/+9it's a business. not a popularity contest. it works both ways.. it's rare anymore that you have team loyalty from either party..
    • Duositex, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Buried for using "anymore" incorrectly.
  • exronin, on 04/16/2008, -5/+7It's a freaking business and McAllister was getting old.
    • threemagic, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Not to mention the last couple years he had MAJOR injuries in his knees. Pretty important for a running back. They drafted and pay Reggie Bush a lot of cash to be the premiere rb. Deuce made millions already. Unfortunately he may never live up to that level again. I see nothing wrong with that. He's made millions already.
      • BetterOffEd, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Not to mention that Aaron Stecker is better than both of them.


        .
        • redog, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Stecker sucks. Section 601 season ticket holder here. Thomas is much better then stecker and duce even better. After his last surgery Duce said he thought hi s knee was stronger then before. With the advances in sports medicine and the money involved I wouldn't put it past the surgeon to do a better job them Mr & Mrs. McAllister were able to in the first place. He is getting a bit older but I expect to at see him get traded after a lackluster year or so and then have a couple of more good seasons if he gets that opportunity.
    • dafunkmonster, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Does that make it ok for the franchise to go back on their contract with him?
      • Metman, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3They can not restructure his contract w/o the consent of him and/or his agent. Of course, the article makes no mention of that.
        • pandlcg, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4They could just cut him loose completely instead and pay him nothing. It's not like he exactly had a lot of leverage with the owners.
      • wc3452, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4It is a contract that demands a certain type of performance from Deuce. The money in the original contract implies that Deuce should be performing close to some of the top backs in the league. It's the same in everyday life, if you got a contractor to re-shingle your house and it was not up to the standard of the contract then you have every right to recover some of your money.
      • pixelate, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1People digging up dafunkmonster's comment either have no idea how the NFL works, or are being completely irrational about how much millionaire players deserve from their teams.
      • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0no it doesn't - he got screwed because they obviously threatened to release him while still injured. Otherwise theres no way he'd give back a guranteed million. It's funny how many "employees" here are so pro-owner.
      • exronin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1yawn. i hate to see you guys try and survive in the corporate world.
  • GhostFreeman, on 04/16/2008, -26/+2FP with 32 diggs?
    • BurnTees, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6ok, seriously...someone does this every article (i'm sure i've done it too). you're going to get dugg down...we all know this now...so why do it?
  • xjeffx, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Team's don't care. They never do what's right for the player, especially in the NFL. All they care about is Reggie Bush being able to take the reigns.
    • johnnyblazepw, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3yeah and thats not gonna go so well. Barry Sanders he isn't heh. If he were worthy of starting he would have been starting (see Adrian Peterson)
      • jinjin, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2100% agreed. Even with Chester Taylor the job went to AP. Take notes Bush, the NFL isnt the NCAA
    • mustache, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3He's a complimentary running back. He needs a Duce type player beside him to be any sort of effective.
    • BetterOffEd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I'm a HUGE Saints fan, and I concur with all of you. Regarding Reggie Bush, two things are for certain:

      1.) He catches the ball as well as any running back in the league (great hands), BUT...
      2.) He will never be able to run between the tackles in the NFL.



      .
  • RiMac, on 04/16/2008, -1/+24The worst part is that now college sports are contaminated as well.
    • Yang1205, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Hows that?
    • bubbadoo989, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Dude, they always were. As a former college athlete, I can tell you big time (division 1A) programs are cutthroat football programs. Blow your knee out, and your scholarship is history. The coach doesn't even know you anymore. And that's after having dinner every week with his family.

      Pro football.... although the bucks are much bigger than when I played ball (and for good reason), pity the fool that wastes his millions on Lamboghinis and ho's. They should save and look fwd to that fat NFL pension (wasn't very generous in my day). Just my .02.
  • SyntraFTW, on 04/16/2008, -32/+7Who cares, it's not real football anyways.
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/16/2008, -11/+8Oh you mean pussy assed soccer, that low scorring borefest should not be talked about in the terms of real sports
      • Cronus6, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Don't be so hard on soccer, girls and gay guys need something to play after all.
        • SyntraFTW, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Right, so your calling the rest of the world women or gays? Get a ***** clue already. People DIE from intense soccer rivalries in Brazil. Not to mention Celtic vs Rangers, a more civilized country (scotland, because I know you're a ***** retard) where they beat the ***** out of each other. And thats decided by religion. Yeah, religious people are that ***** serious. They'll beat the ***** out of people and even murder them. What would you do for your throwball team? Paint yourself and get drunk?

          Shut the ***** up and get a clue.
  • halobender, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Most people knew this to be true already.
  • jmpeagle, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8team loyalty served as a detriment to football....no team of the past could compete with the cutthroat nfl businesses of today
    • mrswirl, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2And lack of loyalty has screwed every major sports franchise in the eyes of the fans since the 70's. Free agency and owner collusion has basically destroyed everything noble and good about rooting for your home team anymore. It's all about dollars and cents now to the point that there's no longer any pretense about it.

      Think back to how baseball, basketball, and football have changed since the days of the Babe, the early Celtics, and the NFL powerhouse franchises of the Packers, Steelers and Cowboys. Remember when cheering for your team meant something more than how much the players are paid?

      These days "America's Team" is the one with the biggest payroll. While teams of old may not be able to compete with today's businesses (teams) it was a whole lot more fun to watch them back then. Sad but true.
      • jmpeagle, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1what? noble? It's a game. I watch for my team to WIN. You are what is wrong with what is the sprt and why it sucked so much in the past. Face it, what we have today is a much more improved version. Sport is supposed to be a showcase of talent, not some hippy lovefest.
  • wonko33, on 04/16/2008, -3/+95So a billionaire screwed a multimillionaire who the f... cares? He can console himself in his mansion while I struggle to pay my mortgage and cable bill to watch him play.
    BTW if I lose my ability to do my job, they won't restructure my deal... I'll just be out of work
    • theillest1, on 04/16/2008, -0/+26That's a hell of a valid point my friend. This $600 tax rebate will be the biggest "bonus" that I've ever received...
      • leerayIG88, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2That's why I'm a part-time gigolo on the weekends.
    • xhazerdusx, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Great point.
    • BurnTees, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2great point except that are you under contract with your employer?
      • TobiasParker, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Most states in the U.S. have open employment, meaning you can be fired or quit at any time without penalties to either party.
    • mikey2dope, on 04/16/2008, -6/+7No, that's a TERRIBLE point. It would be a valid point if he were talking about his contracted job. But a regular job compared to a contract? If you signed a contract to do office work for 3 years at 50,000 dollars, and suffered a hand injury at work, and they restructed your deal to 30,000 now, and ignored the fact that years prior you sacrificed your own production for the company's benefit THEN you would have described a situation that is comparable.

      People have to stop judging the situation of those above them in comparison to their own situations. Why? Because there are people even worse off than you who can bitch about your bitching. Ignore the dollar signs for a second and focus on the principle.
      • BurnTees, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2i don't know why we're all being dugg down for making valid points.
    • suzywang3000, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2the principal is terrible. As a Braves fan, we have suffered 3 straight years paying that jackass Mike Hampton$15 million to sit on his ass 162 times a year. That's money we could have used.
      • heir0fisildur, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2"We" being the Braves, or "we" being the fans of the Braves?
    • p0tent1al, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2man living in Africa:
      So a guy sits around watching football, and complains about paying bills on his house that he owns? He can console himself in his living room big enough for our whole tribe, while I struggle in my hut that is smaller than his bathroom, to feed my family.
      BTW if I lose my ability to do my job as a provider, I can't just go out a find a job like this guy can. Me and my family will starve to death.
  • fudsak, on 04/16/2008, -5/+4Is the NFL much worse than other professional sports? I think the NBA might be the absolute worst. However, there seems to be a lot of loyalty in the NHL, particularly if they wear an 'A' or a 'C' on their jersey.
    • johnnyblazepw, on 04/16/2008, -1/+14the nba has guaranteed contracts, as does baseball.. Football does not. Thats the biggest difference. In the NBA sometimes players get stuck getting paid under their value, but at least the money is guaranteed. They still get paid regardless of injury or whatever. In football they can just get rid of your contract at will. Other than signing bonuses and other up front money, nothing is guaranteed
      • fudsak, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9I see someone already burried your comment, so I dugg it. I'm sick of people burying comments that aren't some witty response. Comments serve very much like a forum and your post is very informative and doesn't even have an interjecting opinion.
  • BryanG412, on 04/16/2008, -4/+11Honestly who gives a *****
  • amawg9, on 04/16/2008, -0/+17Look, I’m all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I’m getting paid for here is my loyalty. But … if there were somewhere else that valued that loyalty more highly, I’m going wherever they value loyalty the most.
  • squeevey, on 04/16/2008, -3/+13Captain Obvious, you have a call on line 1.
  • ErikHarrison, on 04/16/2008, -5/+4Why write an article stating the ***** obvious?
    • WaltJay, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1A better question is why is it on the front page of Digg? I guess I should expect some articles about water being wet to hit the front page too!
  • akademiks, on 04/16/2008, -5/+2Restructuring contracts happen all the time. Teams run into salary cap space and ASK the players if they're willing to restructure their contract. Then they turn it into incentives, but the incentives are those that are likely to be earned by the player anyways.
  • jnava121, on 04/16/2008, -6/+0Aaron Stecker and Reggie Bush are the future in New Orleanz. Not sure Deuce would be hurt though if that offensive line could actually block anybody... Deuce couldn't even get out the backfield on most of those early games ... I guess it's better than getting released.....
    • OneLess, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1He got injured on a pass play and it was the opposite knee as the first tear. It had nothing to do with his o-line and everything to do with an unlucky landing after a dump-off.
      • jnava121, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0yeah with an amazing 1 yard run, im sure those stints up the middle running into his own Olineman against Tennessee didn't at all affect the injury. I mean that running game was absolutely blazing those first few games.. Look out adrian peterson...
    • bnut, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Are you kidding me? Aaron Stecker couldn't hold deuce's jock strap and he is not the future. He has recovered from a season ending knee injury before and he should be good for another 3 or 4 years. We already know that Reggie can't be the main back in the offense, he needs someone like Deuce to get the bulk of the carries while Haslett throws him all over the place. And i guess the fact that the Saints were nearly the best in sacks allowed last year had nothing to do with the offensive line itself.
  • GunbladeVIII, on 04/16/2008, -1/+18Sorry, but it works both ways. The Cincinnati Bengals have a contract with Chad Johnson that they'd love to honor, but he's not going to hold up his end, demanding trades and not showing up to anything team related.

    Neither players nor teams have any kind of loyalty to each other. It's sad.
    • OneLess, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Yeah sorry, but when players can holdout pretty much whenever they feel like it, this writer's little spiel about _teams_ not honoring contracts falls a bit short.
    • tehjarvis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Also, the Bengals have kept David Pollack on his contract, and are doing everything they can for him, despite him breaking his neck and probably never playing football again.
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2***** chad johnson, i cant stand him and i cant stand TO. They just run on talent, they dont give a ***** about the team.
      P.S. Husmensada(sp) is the better than chad anyway
    • ironrex, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1That's the entire point of the article. Fans usually focus on how bitchy the players are being by not honoring their contracts, but here you see the obvious flipside that we never focus on. Good short article with a valid point.
  • seansich, on 04/16/2008, -6/+7That writer better watch his back. Seriously. The NFL pushed ESPN to eliminate Playmakers. They could also push to have this guy's job eliminated. The NFL is the new dictatorship. All hail Chairman Goodell!
    • noloveIII, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah that pissed me off ending it abruptly like that. I didn't think it had low ratings either, it was a shame to end like that.
    • johnnyblazepw, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1dugg for playmakers... that was a good show that ended way too soon
  • CTRaider, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Seems to me if the team could re-structure the contract, for those reasons, that maybe the player needs a better agent and lawyer.
  • endustry, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I hear they also told him he had to change his first name from Deuce to Uno.
  • Patent, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1Hometown Sports Team: Defeating Opposing Teams Since the Year We Were Founded.
  • kingcorran, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1If the bonus was supposed to be 'guaranteed' money... they have no right to restructure that.
  • vacax, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3Give me a break, all of you sports fans who think it is about loyalty and how you play the game need to get over yourselves. It's about paychecks, endorsements, broadcasting rights, advertisements, and fame. To think you let it get inside your heads this much--you're just a mindless consumer of what they're selling you.
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Because no star signs a contract with a team for long term through thick and thin? Brett Farve for instance
  • mytibt, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1And Nike sits back smiling...
  • Hardac, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4They fail to mention that he was injured for the entire season last year and that he restructured voluntarily to stay on the team. Sounds loyal to me.
  • edkopp4, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9I've never understood while contracts are taken seriously in most contracts and considered legally binding, but in the NFL, the team or the player can decide on a whim to not honor the contract to get more (or less) money. If it's not a real contract, then why call it that?
  • Nyck, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1They could have just cut him and he wouldn't have gotten anything....I doubt that bonus was guaranteed. Its New Orleans covering their bases if he gets injured again. Business plain and simple.
  • jcaino, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2It is a business...but you can still have loyalty in business. Anyways, the Pittsburgh Steelers have a pretty good track record of retaining players (and getting rid of the one's with attitude/legal problems)
  • nelav, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Not sure how this is even news, if you're a football fan you should know by now that all contracts aren't guaranteed. Stuff like this happen every year and to even bigger names.
  • Sippi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+21Deuce, invested his money wisely. He owns a chain of car dealerships along with other smaller businesses which are all doing well. He should get as healthy as possible on their dime and then walk away. He has nothing to worry about for the rest of his life since he did not piss his money away a fancy cars and big houses.

    He is also a respected person throughout the southeast, I am willing to bet he will be even more succesful off the field than on it.
    • drachemorder, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Yeah. Even we Mississippi State fans like him now, and that's saying something.
      • darkcooger, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Some State fans, perhaps, but I still find it hard to cheer for him. ;) Regardless, it sure doesn't seem like the Saints have done him right, and I don't like that no matter who it is. Except maybe Eli.
    • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0What the heck does his business dealings have to do with his guaranteed money. Just because that money seems like alot to me and you doesn't make the contract less valid. He was loyal to NO cause he could have left to a better team for more money and arguably never got hurt. If you remember NO had no O-line when he was headliner. Getting injured was a high concern and the guranteed money had to be the main incentive to stay. It's just funny how so many folks on here are so "pro-owner"
      FYI - N.O. was worth 738 million last year and spent less than 100 million on salaries for the entire franchise.
  • dafragsta, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3"People seem to always hold employees to a higher standard than companies."

    Loved that.
  • futureisours, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6Big friggen deal. Any pro NFL player will make tons more a year than just about any Digg user. They do quite well. Enough with the griping.
  • jefree, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3And this of thing is the main reason I try not to watch professional sports. Hired mercenaries playing for a place they are not likely from and owners who mostly just want to make a buck and may not even live in the same place either. Sure I like football and basketball, but I won't waste too much of my time watching when the glory is all superficial.
    There should be some sort of rule that says you have to have spent at least five years living within a 100 mile radius of where your team represents. Then at least when I'm rooting for the home team I'm supporting players who have come from that region and shaped somewhat by the local culture.
    • mustache, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1You're daddy should have taken you to a few ball games when you were a kid. Hometown loyalty exists with the fans in the seats. The players on the field are just a representation of that.

      A lot of times the owner is a local guy, and it's all about the community for them. At least, the small market owners anyway.
    • mustache, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I do however agree with some of your points, and the local thing is an interesting argument. But I'll tell you Green Bay would be ***** awful if they had to pick from their local residents. Other than some Brat-eating linemen, they wouldn't have much luck on the skill positions.
    • XFARB6, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0I know how you feel, but I learned a long time ago to be selective. "Local" is for High School, some colleges and minor league Baseball. Everything else is just business.
  • cadeucsb, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Are these not the terms of the league agreed to by the players via their union during times such as collective bargain agreements over the years?
  • murraj2, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Sure there is. Brady took a smaller deal than he could get on the open market to save the Patriots Cap space to sign other players. Moss certainly took a below market deal also.

    But it goes both ways for plenty of teams and players. Within a day of becoming a free agent, Asante Samuel alraady had a deal lined up with the highest bidder and signed. Teams will cut players to save money, players will leave for moer money.
  • JDOG, on 04/16/2008, -0/+14I wish phone carrier contracts were like this. Too many dropped calls? Sorry AT&T I'm "restructuring" our contract.
  • mattsbert, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Do they still teach "Ethics 101" in business school? ...that's what I thought
  • mustache, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Absolutely NO loyalty? I would say for the most part that's true, but it still does exist.

    How about David Garrard for example. He took a very meager contract to stay with his team as it's back-up a few years back. He could have as easily moved into free agency to get more money and compete for a starting job somewhere. Instead, he chose to stay with the team, as their back-up for a little less money. A few years later what happens? He gets rewarded after a few years of hard work and a great year of play by getting a huge payday of $20 million guaranteed to be the highest paid player in the Jaguars franchise history(not long I know but still).

    Not only that, but he could have argued that he should be paid more, but he took a contract that both sides could agree without dragging it out until training camp so that he could get down to business and focus on his job.

    It goes both ways. Loyalty isn't dead in the NFL, just few and far between with the Jerry Jones' of the world.
    • jnava121, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Funny fatboy jamarcus Russell was holding out eating shrimp and grits in mobile when Garrad was battling for the starting job at training camp!

      Russell gets like 29 or 31 mil guaranteed ??? that is pretty sweet for the next byron leftwhich...
      • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Once again someone drank the haterade. Do you think the fact that JR the #1 pick mind you took into account the dismal situation of OAK. They have no O-line, D-line, or team chemistry. They have no system to train him for the NFL or a foundation to build on in that position. At the time they looked 3-4 years away from being a viable team. He handled it just right. He's worked his whole life to be in the NFL and he came in as the best player in NCAA. Why would he sign for peanuts on the worst team in NFL and risk having a short career? Doesn't seem fair to JR when guys like Garrad go to pretty good team right after the draft even though they did nothing in college to deserve it.
  • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1He should've played baseball. They'd be paying off his contract for decades after he was too hurt to play.
  • thaitan, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Who cares? They get paid millions just to play a game for a living.
  • JmanIII, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1Honestly Deuce just isn't that much of an asset to the team anymore. If we're going to pay these athletes millions of dollars, they had better perform.
    • darkcooger, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1We?
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1If you attend pro football, your'e included. If you buy products from companies that sponsor NFL broadcast, your'e included.
  • mlrigsby, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Anyone who complains about players holding out for more money should always remember the Steve McNair situation. He was the face of their franchise, and continuously restructured his contract when the Titans were in cap hell. Then, when it was time to pay him, he was escorted away from the practice field by security.

    The author of this article is right. People hold a double-standard with respect to players and owners.
  • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Don't let your hating on the players salary cloud your judgment on this. Players salaries "Appear" to be bloated because franchises make more money than ever before. Tickets sales, merchandise, TV deals, and entertainment means that the percentage a player makes in this age is much higher than in others. Just think if a single player makes 8-10 million in a year then how much is the team owner earning off that player?

    The reason for the outrage is because Deuce's bonus was "guaranteed" in his contract. This mean that a team will pay you what your owed regardless of your performance or ability to perform the job. Football being such a violent sport injuries are always highly likely. The restructuring was a strong arm technique that Deuce had to accept. If they threatened to release him while injured his overall value would go down significantly and more than likely wouldn't be able to compete for a job till he's totally healthy. Considering that he was injured while playing in a game for his team this is a pretty low blow to Deuce. It's amazing how you guys can defend the companies and not the players. The writer of that article was totally correct.
    • dkrich, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0I don't disagree, but I will say that the Saints should be given some credit for not cutting him to begin with, which is what plenty of teams do, and with no warning. I think what people are missing is that even though the Saints aren't paying him a full salary, they are doing more than they have to do, and I think they should get some credit for that. How many times in the offseason do you hear about players getting cut because of an injury, or they are too old, etc? Deuce is past his prime and his best days are behind him.
      • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Dude, that was the whole point. They threatened him with a release, of which they'd had to pay up. But that would have made Deuce's situation very bad since he would have to compete in training camp with other teams to get a new job. His being loyal cost him alot of money. He could have left N.O. when they drafted Bush but stayed to help rebuild the team. The 1 million guaranteed bonus was the snare the team used to keep him. So in the end he got screwed by the team. Don't forget he got hurt during a game not on his motor bike.
  • Danny, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1Seriously, this is news?! Duh!
  • poliver, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Nice way to make a blanket statement about the entire NFL and all owners, but like the other comments - I loss my ability to do my job I don't get paid - nor to I get paid 7 figures.
    • getmdesign, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0First, it's an accurate statement so no other team or owner is condemning this behavior. In fact, most already practice these unethical techniques to save money. Second, if you had a dangerous job and as an incentive to keep you working for his company your employer drafted a contract that said you'd get a certain amount regardless of your ability to perform the job. Now, if suddenly that day came and the company used unsavory techniques to back out of it - wouldn't you feel cheated. What athletes makes is fair based on there value to the franchise. You should see what the owners and the city makes otherwise stop hating playa.
  • Sagarian, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Who else was hoping for the headline: "New Orleans Saints Drop a Deuce" ?
  • EvilMoose, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1At least he has a chance of playing again unlike Al Wilson and his neck. Priest Holmes was allowed to stay on his team in the PUP list even though he was pretty much done.
  • dkrich, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Oh, poor Deuce. He will have to scrape by on the meager millions of dollars that the Saints paid him over the past 6 years while leading them to, how many was it, oh yeah, ZERO Super Bowls. Please go find something else to write about, because this isn't news. Last I checked people don't get paid to not work. That is why there is insurance and worker's comp, which sadly for Deuce doesn't apply. The NFL is a business, and one with a salary cap. No way they are paying him the full price when he isn't playing. Also, there is no way that a team can simply say "we aren't fulfilling the obligations of the contract cause we don't wanna." Doesn't work that way. That's why it is called a CONTRACT. If they restructured his contract, and he and his agent deem that unfair, then it is their fault for signing it in the first place. That is not at all the same thing as a player holding out and violating the terms of a contract. Sad situation, but don't blame the Saints organization or the NFL.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.