Earl Thomas and (almost) signing with KC

[Mloe68 1,521]

2 hours ago, PhataLerror said:

I spent the morning writing out a contract, which was built around an agreement in principle. The details of the contract are subject to review prior to signing. When you hear the phrase, "Agreed to terms", if there was an agreement in the absolute sense, the deal would have already been signed.

There are people who are decent enough to admit that they agreed to terms in principle, and then something even better came along. In those cases, a decent person is within their rights to ask for a release from their verbal agreement to pursue something clearly advantageous. And the Chiefs were decent enough in return to accept Thomas' request for such. It's not as if the Chiefs didn't have an opportunity to improve on their offer. They chose not to. That's the way free agency works.

I admire your sense of honor toward your word, and I try to do the same. What Thomas did is far less dishonorable than what guys like Charles, Houston, and Berry did.

In the current real estate market that massively favors the seller, this situation happens every single day. Buyers need to be aware their offer means absolutely nothing until both parties have physically signed the contract. Agents shouldn’t even bother telling clients a verbal offer has been accepted because It means absolutely nothing in court.  As such if something. better comes along the seller is likely to take it no matter what they told you.  

This of course also happens all the time in national recruiting battles where verbal agreements also mean nothing and players accordingly switch schools liberally. .

What’s slightly different here is language added to the last CBA which demands parties “negotiate in good faith”  Shopping an agreed upon offer like Sanders did would probably qualify as grounds for a grievance complaint for the league to void that contract. But what’s the point.  Instead the recourse teams really have is to make life difficult for agents who pull such nonsense.  This doesn’t have that same feel at all. The Ravens just came in WAY over the top and that was that. 

[liquidfriend 1,151]

3 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

This isn't true at all. NFL contracts by virtue of the CBA the players approved, allow the teams to release a player and only pay guranteeed money. This in reality is part of the total contract. Yearly club options. Earl Thomas signed a 4  year extension, got 45 million dollars as he agreed too and still somehow was being fleeced? Heck he's missed 19 games with injuries over the last 3 years to boot. 

He missed a lot of those games because the Seahawks didn't properly handle his first leg break, so yeah. 

[xen 1,010,220]

8 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

This isn't true at all. NFL contracts by virtue of the CBA the players approved, allow the teams to release a player and only pay guranteeed money. This in reality is part of the total contract. Yearly club options. Earl Thomas signed a 4  year extension, got 45 million dollars as he agreed too and still somehow was being fleeced? Heck he's missed 19 games with injuries over the last 3 years to boot. 

Sooooo...  justin Houston didn't have a contract with KC still when he was released?  He wasn't on an option year.

[kkuenn 3,613]

41 minutes ago, xen said:

Sooooo...  justin Houston didn't have a contract with KC still when he was released?  He wasn't on an option year.

the part about CBA and their agreement to contracts approved by players to be released and guaranteed money to be paid...... this is what teams do and why guaranteed monies is the biggest part of a contract. Houston no matter when cut by a contract was always going to be paid the guaranteed. Hell look at Berry getting all that money for 3 games worth of play.

[xen 1,010,220]

26 minutes ago, kkuenn said:

the part about CBA and their agreement to contracts approved by players to be released and guaranteed money to be paid...... this is what teams do and why guaranteed monies is the biggest part of a contract. Houston no matter when cut by a contract was always going to be paid the guaranteed. Hell look at Berry getting all that money for 3 games worth of play.

All of what u and MLoe say is true.  Yet none of that changes the fact that these players have a contract and teams can ignore it at will.

[reesebobby 5,663]

4 minutes ago, xen said:

All of what u and MLoe say is true.  Yet none of that changes the fact that these players have a contract and teams can ignore it at will.

Except that the contracts allow for cutting them.  JNothing is ignored.  And then they get the guaranteed money.  And now Justin Houston is getting a million a month playing somewhere else.  If they can do the job, they get paid.  If they can't, they don't.  They have a certain duty to live up to the terms of the contract.  Same as me and you. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

6 hours ago, liquidfriend said:

He missed a lot of those games because the Seahawks didn't properly handle his first leg break, so yeah. 

Please elaborate.  He missed 5 games in 2016 with a similar injury. Two more in 2017 with another deal. And then of course 12 last season. Are you saying this is a Justin Houston situation because that is different  

  Otherwise  I see a guy paid a huge contract who missed a ton of games.  And a franchise already burned like we were with Berry with all kinds of dead money lost on Chancelor. And so it’s not hard for me to blame them for not wanting to give a guy who had started to have injury issues a big guarantee too. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

33 minutes ago, xen said:

All of what u and MLoe say is true.  Yet none of that changes the fact that these players have a contract and teams can ignore it at will.

Again part of the contract itself are one year club options. If the player doesn’t like it, don’t sign it.  There’s plenty of contracts out there where salaries for specific years are guaranteed beyond the bonus itself. I’m saying the owners are operating within the rules the players agreed too. If you are arguing that isn’t fair. That’s a different argument.

But likewise I doubt the Chiefs think it’s fair they had to pay Eric Berry massive amounts of money to not play.  Or the Seahawks with Thomas or Chancellor. The players get their leverage in the guarantee.

Honestly I personally consider this a much better approach than baseball.  But I agree the physical nature of football certainly makes it a slippery slope.  Players notice things like this and teams get a reputation which could hurt them in free agency. 

[xen 1,010,220]

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

Again part of the contract itself are one year club options. If the player doesn’t like it, don’t sign it.  There’s plenty of contracts out there where salaries for specific years are guaranteed beyond the bonus itself. I’m saying the owners are operating within the rules the players agreed too. If you are arguing that isn’t fair. That’s a different argument.

But likewise I doubt the Chiefs think it’s fair they had to pay Eric Berry massive amounts of money to not play.  Or the Seahawks with Thomas or Chancellor. The players get their leverage in the guarantee.

Honestly I personally consider this a much better approach than baseball.  But I agree the physical nature of football certainly makes it a slippery slope.  Players notice things like this and teams get a reputation which could hurt them in free agency. 

Again we're not talking about option years.  I'm not saying it's fair or not fair, as that doesn't enter into it.  This is business.  I'm saying the reality is every team chooses every year to not honor contracts by cutting players under contract.  Not option years, players actually having a contract.  It is what it is, but people should stop being bitchy about players chasing guaranteed money.  It's what smart people do.  

[oldtimer 8,694]

4 minutes ago, xen said:

Again we're not talking about option years.  I'm not saying it's fair or not fair, as that doesn't enter into it.  This is business.  I'm saying the reality is every team chooses every year to not honor contracts by cutting players under contract.  Not option years, players actually having a contract.  It is what it is, but people should stop being bitchy about players chasing guaranteed money.  It's what smart people do.  

& you dont have to be smart to figure that out..bird in the hand is what I always say

[Handswarmer 645]

On 4/11/2019 at 12:20 PM, Mloe68 said:

Of course players are looking for guaranteed money. I guess he's got his Super Bowl so now its all about the money. No harm in that.  And he should make less than HB because HB was better last year, healthy and is three years younger.  Honestly I'm just messing around. I expect a player with a ring to go wherever he can get the most money period. I would do the same thing. As for the Ravens. There's a BIG difference between losing in a home wild card game and losing in OT of the AFC Championship. We made that exact huge jump last year.  The difference between Alex Smith as a QB and Patrick Mahomes. We put ourselves in the game with the MVP, now we will see over the next few years if we can win it all. I think even you would admit you aren't there right now.  

IMO the Ravens took a step back by trading Joe Flacco. Still not sold on LJ8 and the run first attack.

FWIW, the ravens lost in OT to the Chiefs, you lost in OT to the eventual SB champs- does that mean that we are only slightly behind the Chiefs when it comes to the Pats?

A loss is a loss.

[Mloe68 1,521]

2 hours ago, xen said:

Again we're not talking about option years.  I'm not saying it's fair or not fair, as that doesn't enter into it.  This is business.  I'm saying the reality is every team chooses every year to not honor contracts by cutting players under contract.  Not option years, players actually having a contract.  It is what it is, but people should stop being bitchy about players chasing guaranteed money.  It's what smart people do.  

And again the contracts these players sign are mostly a series of one year contracts tied together only by the guarantee unless otherwise stated. To say the teams are not honoring the contracts is flat wrong. They are doing exactly what the contract terms the player signed allows them to do. On the other hand a player who holds out is actually not honoring the contract he signed. I just have a major problem with a player signing a huge deal and when they get to the last season after making millions of dollars, they hold out. I also have a problem with a player or agent agreeing to a deal in principal and then shopping it. But thats truly about honor, not the law. 

Again that was the case with Emmanuel Sanders, but I don't think it was with Earl Thomas. Somebody decided to give him a MUCH bigger contract at the last second and he took it. I've got no qualms. 

Of course the guaranteed money is all that matters in this league.  

[Mloe68 1,521]

59 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

IMO the Ravens took a step back by trading Joe Flacco. Still not sold on LJ8 and the run first attack.

FWIW, the ravens lost in OT to the Chiefs, you lost in OT to the eventual SB champs- does that mean that we are only slightly behind the Chiefs when it comes to the Pats?

A loss is a loss.

They did the right thing though in my opinion by trading Flacco. It certainly could work out worse for the Ravens with Jackson, but the current formula to building a championship contender in this league is the formula they are using. Its all about finding the right player to pull it off. 

Everything is a stepping stone in this league to me as a fan. Just tiers of satisfaction starting with getting to the playoffs, winning your division and then it becomes exponential with each step you make in January. But that's all semantics and for any fan to determine for himself. Whats more important to me is that the Chiefs have positioned themselves well to be a sustained January contender and are trying to fix rather than band aid a defense that kept them from the Lombardi last year. I feel phenomenol about our overall position as a fan. And that's about all I can ask for. 

[Troyofoc 361]

1 hour ago, Handswarmer said:

IMO the Ravens took a step back by trading Joe Flacco. Still not sold on LJ8 and the run first attack.

FWIW, the ravens lost in OT to the Chiefs, you lost in OT to the eventual SB champs- does that mean that we are only slightly behind the Chiefs when it comes to the Pats?

A loss is a loss.

And the Pat's lost to the jags,dolphins,lions last year no one without being a homer thinks they're as good as the Pat's. Let alone put money on them come playoffs 

[xen 1,010,220]

4 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

And again the contracts these players sign are mostly a series of one year contracts tied together only by the guarantee unless otherwise stated. To say the teams are not honoring the contracts is flat wrong. They are doing exactly what the contract terms the player signed allows them to do. On the other hand a player who holds out is actually not honoring the contract he signed. I just have a major problem with a player signing a huge deal and when they get to the last season after making millions of dollars, they hold out. I also have a problem with a player or agent agreeing to a deal in principal and then shopping it. But thats truly about honor, not the law. 

Again that was the case with Emmanuel Sanders, but I don't think it was with Earl Thomas. Somebody decided to give him a MUCH bigger contract at the last second and he took it. I've got no qualms. 

Of course the guaranteed money is all that matters in this league.  

Really not understanding where you're coming from.  We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.  They're not a series of one year contracts.  That's why there's dead money on every team.  Having guaranteed money does not mean you can't get cut.  And frankly careers are atypically short in the NFL vs other leagues.  If a player has enough leverage to pull more money, good for them.  

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

Guaranteed money is a front office killer.  Chiefs need to look down the road and be able to pay Mahomes.  This the acceptable price of having a franchise QB.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

8 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

Please elaborate.  He missed 5 games in 2016 with a similar injury. Two more in 2017 with another deal. And then of course 12 last season. Are you saying this is a Justin Houston situation because that is different  

  Otherwise  I see a guy paid a huge contract who missed a ton of games.  And a franchise already burned like we were with Berry with all kinds of dead money lost on Chancelor. And so it’s not hard for me to blame them for not wanting to give a guy who had started to have injury issues a big guarantee too. 

Earl Thomas fractured his leg, the Seahawks advised him to not get surgery to repair and it he broke it again months before he hit FA because it never healed properly.  It was a botch.

[PhataLerror 370]

9 hours ago, xen said:

All of what u and MLoe say is true.  Yet none of that changes the fact that these players have a contract and teams can ignore it at will.

The unilateral ability to tear up a contract is part of the terms of the contract. There's nothing uncontractual or unfair about cutting a player. That's why the Kirk Cousins deal with Minnesota was so outstanding. Nothing more than wanting the opportunity to earn more money has prevented other players from signing fully guaranteed contracts.

 

[xen 1,010,220]

2 hours ago, PhataLerror said:

The unilateral ability to tear up a contract is part of the terms of the contract. There's nothing uncontractual or unfair about cutting a player. That's why the Kirk Cousins deal with Minnesota was so outstanding. Nothing more than wanting the opportunity to earn more money has prevented other players from signing fully guaranteed contracts.

 

I never said there was anything "uncontractual" or unfair about it.  In fact I specifically said the opposite, that fair isn't part of the equation.  

[Mloe68 1,521]

2 hours ago, liquidfriend said:

Earl Thomas fractured his leg, the Seahawks advised him to not get surgery to repair and it he broke it again months before he hit FA because it never healed properly.  It was a botch.

So you are saying his injury in 2016 and the treatment of such was the primary reason for the injury two years later? 

[PhataLerror 370]

2 hours ago, xen said:

I never said there was anything "uncontractual" or unfair about it.  In fact I specifically said the opposite, that fair isn't part of the equation.  

You did say 'teams could ignore the contract'. That is misleading, and typically used as a justification for players to hold out in situations where a team had the rights to a player, a la Charles, Houston, and Berry, who did nothing but weaken the Chiefs for their own selfish aims.

I'm not all in with the owners, either. I will say, however, that players are the primary culprit in contract disputes.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

6 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

So you are saying his injury in 2016 and the treatment of such was the primary reason for the injury two years later? 

Yes

Glad I could clear that up.

[Iluvhouse24 1,808]

Then there's other issue I keep coming back to...and its been brought up before, but is worth discussing with the draft 12 days out.

If we already had Honey Badger in the fold, and were still trying to lock in ET on a 1 yr, you'd have to think that FS is still a priority for the Chiefs in the draft. 

And its a pretty deep draft at safety. Should be fun April 25-27.

[Mloe68 1,521]

5 hours ago, liquidfriend said:

Yes

Glad I could clear that up.

You were right that initial injury weakened the bone and created a greater possibility of reinjuring it by not inserting rod.  Makes sense but it was hardly any misdiagnosis like Justin Houston had to endure.   Thomas had the facts and made a choice. 

And so we are back to a player having sour grapes about having to play in the last year of a contract that paid him over 40 million  Heck if anyone should be upset it’s the Seahawks who paid big money for a players who missed multiple games over three straight seasons   Perhaps the last even preventable  

Said Thomas in June of 2017 when asked why he did not have surgery then: “I wasn’t getting surgery. When I got surgery on my shoulder (following the 2014 season), it feels good. But I don’t want nothing in my leg. When they told me there was like a 50 percent chance it would heal naturally, I said I’m going to take the 50 percent chance.”

[Balto 723]

Do we know for sure that Chiefs signed Honey Badger before Thomas told them he was heading to Baltimore?  Reports seem that KC had to up HBs offer by several million to get it done.  Seems like they didn’t wanna loose another Safety?