Kam is coming to work

[Hawktown]

Seattle lost two winnable games without Kam. The pass defense has been one of the worst in the league in spite of decent play and pressure from the front 7. Kam absolutely would have us at 1-1 minimum. Anyone who feels comfortable with this secondary home or away without Chancellor is delusional.

its not a good Idea to risk going 0-4 and deep sixing the season to try to prove some nefarious point. Kams the one who proved his point already.[/quote]

We would all survive one way or another, again just my opinion.

[The POPE]

We will see how big of a difference it makes. Pretty telling that without Kam,Sherman and Thomas have just looked average. The 2nd corner spot has been fairly interchangeable in the past (Maxwell, Browner, or whoever else has filled in). So in Kams absence the rest of the secondary is ineffective. That's pretty much what the evidence points to, all these players were drafted to fit a system. Remove a cog in the wheel, and the others look average. Better pray to GOD that Kam doesn't get hurt in his return as so often happens when players hold out and miss camp. Basically the evidence points to the fact that a defense without Kam is equivilant to an offense without the #1 QB. Well at least Dallas is screwed.

The POPE

[HumanCockroach]

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.

Thanks Bane, EXACTLY. I don't excuse Kam, or sympathize, what I do, is see it for what it's worth.

And please people, STOP comparing your business or contracts to the situation, they are not relatable.

And contracts ARE and have ALWAYS been disposable in the NFL ,whether people like it or not, doesn't change it

[RiverDog]

And please people, STOP comparing your business or contracts to the situation, they are not relatable.

Pot calls kettle black. Who said this?

I will never understand the ire many seem to be hell bent on directing at any human being for asking for, or demanding a raise, as I would bet EVERY fan ( or damn close to it) have ALL done the SAME exact thing at some time in their lives. So many people get so incredibly hung up on the dollar amounts, that they lose site of that fact. Every person in this country, that has worked, whether for an hourly wage or a salary have entered into a contract. Verbal contracts ( ie I agree to work for x amount of dollars) are indeed contracts, and are recognized by law as such. So in essence every single person who has asked for, demanded and received a raise have "broken" their contract ( the original agreed upon compensation at the time of hire).

Is that not comparing a business or personal contract or agreement in the real world with the current situation with Kam's contract/holdout? Hell, the reason I used my business as an example in the first place was in response to the real world analogies you made.

[burrrton]

[edit to just shorten it to this question]

Why do some of you think an NFL player should never be able to be fired?

Leave comparisons to other labor out of it if you think that's unfair and just answer that for me. I'm honestly curious.

[Hawktown]

And please people, STOP comparing your business or contracts to the situation, they are not relatable.

I'm sorry but pretty much most contracts out there have the same kind of outs in them for both parties in the NFL AND " real life". There is no doubt about it. I'll keep comparing as long as it applies.

Burr, Ofcoarse you should be able to fire them. The Question is, Why should the employer have to keep someone they don't want?

[kalibane]

Did anyone say that NFL players shouldn't be fired? They are fired all the time, they just call it being released and that was an option for the Seahawks.

[kalibane]

We will see how big of a difference it makes. Pretty telling that without Kam,Sherman and Thomas have just looked average.
The POPE

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.

[burrrton]

They are fired all the time, they just call it being released and that was an option for the Seahawks.

Right, and that seems to bug some people so they think holdouts are warranted.

To me, being fired is, and should be, a distinct possibility for virtually any profession, and NFL players are no exception. That means "BUT THE TEAM CAN JUST CUT THE PLAYER" carries no weight with me, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it does with anyone else.

Maybe it's just me.

[kalibane]

It's because people act like players are required to honor their contracts to the letter but teams aren't. There is not a person in contract law that will tell you the NFL contracts are anything but one sided. If they weren't collectively bargained they'd never hold up in court.

It's not just because people "get fired". It's also because teams will go to a player who is meeting the terms of their contract, a player they have no real desire or "cause" to fire and essentially tell them either re-negotiate the contract or we're releasing you. So it's not about their ability to do the job, they are essentially fired because the boss doesn't want to meet the terms of a contract he agreed to.

So ... does that mean I feel "sorry" for NFL players? No but I also will never understand why people get so mad at players for not honoring their contract, like it's a matter of honor and common decency, when the other party in the contract never does. To me releasing a veteran just because you don't want to pay him (regardless of ability) is no more or less honorable than a player holding out because they want to renegotiate for more money.

My position is there is no villain in this kind of disagreement, nor is there a hero. It's just a dysfunctional business model and this is what happens from time to time as a result. *shrug* I'd prefer all parties lived up to the contract they signed but that's not how it works.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep. No one is upset about releasing a player, or forcing a pay cut, people are just pointing out the obvious. Be nice if some could see the situation for what it actually is instead of getting obsessed with dollar amounts.

Which is simply, a disgruntled employee and an employer, nothing else. A common situation, and one that most if not all have at one time or another been in.

Neither did anything but what they felt best for them, the employer and the employee.

[burrrton]

I'd prefer all parties lived up to the contract they signed but that's not how it works.

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"?

[c_hawkbob]

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'll buy (most of) that. In order of impact: 5-2-1-4-3.

[NorthHawk]

The difference is the pool of equivalent talent.
You can get an equivalent computer programmer, but how many football players are there that bring the abilities of Kam or Michael Bennett, Earl Thomas, etc.
That pool is very shallow, almost to the point of being populated by only a few players - and almost none that are available.
It's that lack of equivalents that gives the player leverage, and with an average career of only a few years it's understandable that they try to get as much as possible to the point of withdrawing services in an attempt to get it.
It's the ugly side of sports, but predictable in the long run for most teams that are challenging each year for league supremacy.

[HumanCockroach]

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"?

Absolutely they can, just like a software developer, can refuse to work for that company, with or without a contract, if the company changes the parameters of the contract, ie, cutting their pay, changing a deadline, adding responsibilities not covered in the contract ( particularly important in this situation) or costs, there are a THOUSAND ways legally to get out of a contract if one party either does not adhere to the contract (including verbal amendums that aren't delivered on, say a promise to rework the contract at a certain time and then reneging on it when that time comes).

The only difference here is, everyone knows about it, and selfishly wants someone else to fulfill his contract because they want their team to do better. The only people in this situation that should be upset is the franchise or players, fans don't own that team, its players or the FO. Obviously Seattle knows his value, or he would not be here any longer would he? Nope, he obviously can't be simply replaced, unlike a software developer ( by the by, my brother signed and then broke exactly the example you gave with Microsoft, because he had the opportunity for more money at another company, and yet, no one cared.) Kam is not easily replaced, nor is there another construction company, or developer, or employee just sitting there waiting, that can do the job at the level he can.

Anyone, who thinks contracts aren't renegotiated in the regular workplace and society, daily, don't pay attention very well, and that goes BOTH ways.

[kalibane]

Burrrton,

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.

The bottom line is both sides do not honor their contracts as written. They find loopholes and ways to get out of them (or try to get out of them) when the current framework becomes inconvenient to one party or the other.

Some people seem to go out of their way to rationalize or find technicalities to justify that one side or the other is less honorable in their methodology. It makes people feel good to have something to be mad at when something doesn't work out the way they want it to.

I'm not one of those people.

[HumanCockroach]

Great post.

[burrrton]

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.

I'm not inappropriately conflating, but I *am* mischaracterizing your position a bit- what you said there isn't unreasonable and in fact is something I'd agree with, at least in broad strokes.

Maybe the moral outrage I think I'm sensing is more in my head than reality.

Anyway, carry on. Who else is heading to the game?

[RiverDog]

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]

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.

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.

[RiverDog]

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.

I'm not sure that civilized is the right word for it. Perhaps if we were to say that society has become less ethical.

But I understand and agree with the point that you are making.

[NorthHawk]

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.

[RiverDog]

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.

There's a lot of real trustworthy people out there. Hell, I consider you to be trustworthy and I've never even met you.

Trustworthy isn't the right word. Maybe integrity?

[HumanCockroach]

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.

[RiverDog]

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?

[obiken]

What do we demand for him next year? Chuck Powell on KJR says he will be traded.

[HumanCockroach]

Which handshake agreement was it that Seattle reneged on?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -seahawks/

I am not claiming it's gospel or anything, but multiple reports were out there that Seattle and Chancellor had a handshake agreement to adjust his 2016 salary in August that Seattle refused to follow through on.