The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I've often said that the NFLPA is by far the worst player's union in all of sports. Between their worthless contracts to fines and suspensions, it's clear they need new leadership. I bring this up again because of the latest Von Miller news. He was involved in some domestic dispute back in January that was pretty serious but the police dropped the charges against him based off of the evidence.

So, case closed as far as the law is concerned. The problem is that the NFL will likely review this case and then see if it warrants a suspension. This de facto makes the NFL a higher authority than the legal system of the United States. How the hell did the NFLPA let this happen? If the police say you are innocent, then why isn't that the end of it?

Keep in mind that Ray Rice was not charged, but he was suspended by the NFL.

The NFL isn't a "higher authority" than the law; they are a separate authority with their own standards.   I mean, we can talk about players being suspended or cut for accusations that didn't lead to charges, but in a league where Kyle Van Noy was just cut on a whim, that doesn't seem very productive.

I do agree with you that the NFLPA is terrible and the worst player union by far, but if I had to pick a main reason, the franchise tag would probably be the worst one.  A league that allows players to be cut at any time should not have a mechanism that prevents players from entering free agency until the team says so.

The franchise tag is terrible but being able to use it multiple times is an absolute travesty. I've always felt that the NFLPA doesn't have incompetent leadership but corrupt leadership that cuts shady deals under the table for their own benefit. I have no other explanation for it since every deal they sign is always so one sided for the owners. I think they just signed another one last offseason that runs for 10 years, so things won't change any time soon.

As far as guaranteed contracts go, the players individually need to step up for those. They need to all agree that contracts must be guaranteed or not the jokes they are right now. That's how baseball did it and the MVP players started insisting on opt out years.

Sports contracts should never be guaranteed in any sport.  That goes for players and coaches

I have no problem with them being guaranteed because in any other business contracts must be followed, but sometimes the guarantees prevent a team from spending big on a player. Looking more at MLB right now since they have the longest contracts. Very rarely does a massive 10 year contract work out for the team and I think that's why Bryce Harper and Manny Machado saw such a small market.

Also, no one in the legal system has used the word innocent.

Are you saying that you think any player who has a good year should be able to void his contract and immediately hit the open market?  That would basically eliminate the entire rationale behind having contracts.

Yeah, we can't do that. However, I do feel it is in the players interest long term if MLB adopted some kind of buyout system like they have in the NHL and NBA or even their own opt-outs. This would probably lead to more long term contracts as the teams won't feel like they are stuck for a decade with an injured or underperforming player.

I can't even count the times that a long contract blew up in the Yankees faces and because of that, the richest team in baseball really doesn't give those contracts out as much as they are able to.

No. I'm saying that if a player or a coach aren't getting the job done, then they need to be sent packing and not be paid the remainder of their contract.  No team should be stuck paying someone who isn't up to snuff

So basically, if an employee is being overpaid, they should be fired, but if they're being underpaid, then suck it up?  That's crazy.  The only thing it would do is make the owners more money.

I don't know of any other profession where a "contract" is only binding for one of the parties who signs it, while the other party can rip it up at any time.  Such a scenario defeats the purpose of even having a contract in the first place.  Coaches and players might as well switch to being at-will employees like you and me.

Then the owners can use that money for community events.  Or better yet, building their own stadiums instead of having the city foot the bill

If you want the owners to pay for their own stadiums, I don't think taking money out of the pockets of players and coaches accomplishes that goal.  Owners don't get taxpayers to pay for stadiums because they're poor... they do it because they can.

I don't think the NFLPA is as bad as you think it is. It isn't everything you would like it to be because the NFL is far and away the most successful so the owners have a LOT of leverage. The reality is If the NFL weren't doing so well as a league, the NFLPA would have more leverage against the owners which is why in comparison it appears weak to some other player associations, but it's not nearly as bad as you're trying to make it out to be. They do the best they can. If there's a problem with the association it's that the stars are the ones that are the best off, it's the average to below average players that are getting shafted.

I also don't believe the franchise tag is as bad as you are making it out to be. Those players get good contracts. As good as they would get on the open market? Probably not, but it's not like they are stuck in a bad contract for year, they are stuck in a very good (just not the best) contract. Not sure that's so horrible. The fact they can keep renewing it is pretty bad, I agree that there should be a limit to maybe a single year. I don't think you want the NFL to turn into the NBA either where the stars determine where they will play.

100%. It's a disgusting practice that should've never started in the first place but let the owners pay for it themselves. If you can't afford to, you shouldn't be an owner in the first place. No more Derek Jeters who buy a franchise with their last nickel and then cry poverty.

Derek Jeter and Don Mattingly are Yankee plants in the Marlins organization.  Their job is to turn the Marlins into the Yankees personal farm club.

Tax-payer funded stadiums are a tough situation.

On one hand, I don't like when cities give what are essentially tax breaks to pay for private companies, sports or not.

But what sucks is that if you don't do it, some other city will do it to encourage the influx of money from having the team or business. 

You really would need some understanding or law at a larger level that you can't give money to stuff like that even if a city wants to.

I don't know if they are plants but I'm sure Jeter didn't mind helping his old team out with the Giancarlo Stanton salary dump trade. Looking back on it now, don't know if the Yankees won that trade seeing as how Stanton gets hurt with a light breeze.

There really should be a Partnership between Government and the Cities when building the Stadiums; and a fair agreement where the city/state doesn't get hosed.

I do agree that the franchise tag shouldn't be used multiple times on the same player, but overall the franchise tag is a good thing.  It's limited to one player per team, and the player being tagged gets top dollar for a year based on the highest paid players in their position.  It adds player stability to your favorite team, and keeps a player from demanding an outrageous contract, possibly based on an out of the ordinary spectacular prior season.

The obvious downside is the player getting severely injured, whereby he would lose tentative guaranteed money on a multi-year contract.  But the positive is salaries will increase and he could get an even bigger payday when he signs a longer term deal the following year.

So IMO the tag should be changed in the future to limit it's use, and perhaps force something like a 50% guarantee of money for the following season in the event the player is hurt or cut following the franchise tag year.

To address both your points, here's what should be in the new CBA.   Regarding the franchise tag, you can only use it on a player one time.  If you can't get a deal done with that player after that extra year, he is a free agent.   You should also be allowed to use the transition tag, which basically makes a UFA an RFA for that year.

And for severe injuries, all NFL contracts should include insurance paid for by the team that would pay a player X amount of dollars if said player suffers a career ending injury.

Obviously franchise tags are great for the team.  For the players, they're terrible.  NFL careers are much shorter than other leagues, and playing even 1 year under the tag can be a significant chunk of your career.

Players have a very limited time to sign a big contract, and franchise tags reduce that window.

But the contract they get isn't THAT bad. If it's just 1 year it's not a bad deal at all. Ask Dak what he thinks about the franchise tag. In my opinion he basically just got another year added to the deal he just signed. Not a bad deal at all in my opinion.

There's gotta be something.

We have a taxpayer funded baseball stadium in a really shitty location.   It's like the worst of both worlds.

If you involve the Government with the ability to use taxpayer money and the Owners with their desire to use taxpayer money and not their own, there is nothing that can be done other than guillotines for them both. I don't really have a non-guillotine solution but I do know that asking either party to do the right thing is ill advised.