kalibane wrote:I don't think HC is offering Kam any sympathy. He's just treating it as a matter of fact occurrence. I feel the same way. I'm bothered by the spectacle it created around the Seahawks but that's me being selfish. I just can't work myself up about it to actually get angry and direct venom at Kam over his tactic.
I think the contract as sacrosanct is a specious argument. Hold outs are frowned upon but it's an accepted way of doing business in the NFL, which is why they have a penalty structure set up to sanction people who don't honor their contract instead of terminating the contract and suing for breach.
Mainly I just think it was a stupid tactic. He had no leverage from day one. He was never going to get what he wanted this year.
HumanCockroach wrote:And please people, STOP comparing your business or contracts to the situation, they are not relatable.
HumanCockroach wrote:And please people, STOP comparing your business or contracts to the situation, they are not relatable.
The POPE wrote:We will see how big of a difference it makes. Pretty telling that without Kam,Sherman and Thomas have just looked average.
The POPE
They are fired all the time, they just call it being released and that was an option for the Seahawks.
I'd prefer all parties lived up to the contract they signed but that's not how it works.
kalibane wrote:This would the obvious media reaction. But I don't think it tells us jack. There is a list of things that I think are far likelier to have impacted their level of play early in the year.
1. Both had to rehab injuries in the offseason and couldn't perform their usual offseason routine. Thomas in particular had no contact during training camp or preseason. Didn't get on the field until week one and is wearing a protective harness that restricts his movement.
2. New defensive coordinator.
3. Overall malaise from two very long seasons. There is a reason why we were the first team to go to back to back Super Bowls in 10 years, and are trying to be the first team to go to three straight since the Bills. It takes a lot out of you.
4. Richard Sherman specific: His first child. If he's an involved father, it requires you to completely change your routine.
5. Kam's absence.
Sherman in particularly I don't think has anything to do with Kam's absence. Kam doesn't do anything that helps Sherman do his job. If Thomas and Sherman's play picks back up to their normal standard I'd attribute it to getting healthy and shaking off the rust.
I don't mean to split hairs, but unless you think contracts are 'invalid' to some degree unless they're fully guaranteed, they *are* "living up to the contract" and working within what the contract allows- there is no roster spot guaranteed. A player, just like a software developer, can become too expensive for their position and be released.
What's objectionable about that other than "It's not how the NBA does it"?
I think you're conflating ideas that don't have anything to do with one another. The fact that I think contracts being guaranteed would alleviate a lot of the issues the NFL has with labor has no bearing on why I'm not upset at Kam. It's not that I think Kam is owed the money on the back end and is getting cheated or something, I just think it would make him feel more comfortable in his position and thus would not be so quick to hold out.
RiverDog wrote:I do agree with Kal and others that point out that examples of contracts in the real world are not always analogous to those in the NFL. But for me, it's not so much about a legal agreement as it is about your personal word or commitment, and IMO that principle is universal. If I shake hands with someone or give someone my word, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get what we agreed on and that I promised, and I expect that same courtesy from every person and every business that I encounter. It seems that principle is a thing of the past, and that too many people accept or rationalize dishonesty.
NorthHawk wrote:I think you have hit on what makes a lot of us uncomfortable with the holdout scenario even if we understand Kam's position.
It used to be that big deals could be sealed by a handshake, but those days are long gone and is another example of how our society has devolved over the decades.
We've become less civilized as time has progressed in a lot of areas with business being one.
NorthHawk wrote:I agonized briefly over the word civilized, but couldn't come up with a better word at the time.
Ethical might work, but maybe trustworthy could be an option with people believing their word should be as good as gold thereby allowing handshakes to mean a lot more than they often do today.
There are still some real trustworthy people out there, but in my experience they are getting harder to find.
HumanCockroach wrote:You said it yourself RD, you "expect the same from everyone you deal with" what if they don't do that? Which according to multiple reports is exactly what Seattle did, they shook that hand, and then reneged on that handshake. I am not laying blame, IMHO the Hawks FO did what they had to do, but if you shake someones hand, deliver what is promised, and then have them back out on you on their end, do you simply keep fulfilling your end? Especially if that person has a long history of not fulfilling their agreements?
I don't have any issue with people being critical of a holdout, what I can't ever stomach, is the blind eye turned towards the second set of signatures on that contract. Or the continued insistence of how "honorable" that person happens to be, when every working man in the world has done the same thing in one form or another, at one time or another.
I tend to see things for what they are, not what I want them to be. Disagreements happen between employee and employer and have since the dawn of time, the insistence that people were more honorable or ethical simply because we want to believe they were in that long , lost far away land of yesteryear, doesn't mean it was so. Priorities have certainly changed, but getting paid was just as popular in the 50's as it is now in the year 2015.
Which handshake agreement was it that Seattle reneged on?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 121 guests