Mathieu should refuse deal to sign with cards

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
  • Lady Talon wrote:Only if they release him within the same football year he sustained the injury. If he's out 6 games, he'd be up the creek. Guaranteed money at least gives them a check if they need to miss an extended period of time.

    Say he misses weeks 2-10 due to injury. Arizona could release him after the 2014 football year begins and not bother to pay him for the games he missed, or an injury settlement.


    Can't they write in a provision staying that the money is guaranteed in case of injury but forfeited if he gets busted for taking drugs again? I seem to recall that it's been done before, or something similar.

    I'm just glad Seattle didn't draft him. Let Arizona deal with this.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1201
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • There is a contingency for injury, you see it every year during training camp with the Seahawks. "Player X was released after getting treatment and getting an "injury settlement."
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8009
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • His signing bonus was fully garunteed ar 600, 000. Not to shabby. More than he deserves.


    Edit per Schefter his bonus is 260, 000. A different number than first reported.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9178
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • taz291819 wrote:I don't disagree with the Cards at all. I wouldn't guarantee him any money either. Yes, he'll get a signing bonus, but he has to earn the rest. It's basically, don't smoke weed, and you'll get paid.

    The guy made his bed, now he has to deal with the consequences.


    Plus One. Good God people, Tyrann has earned NOTHING except to be signed to a contract with zero guaranteed money. He earned that by his foolish actions.

    And there is nothing wrong with zero guaranteed money, if it's good enough for Revis, it's good enough for Matheiu, the miscreant is lucky he got drafted, he needs to quit his crying and accept his circumstances.

    He was given every opportunity at LSU, and now he's been given one more, and certainly more than those other kids in the draft that went through college, kept their act together but still didn't get drafted. How much are they going to get paid? Nothing. They would give anything, and already gave up a lot to live their dream, but instead it's being giving to a loser that has hurt who knows how many people?

    He's a piece of garbage who gets to break all the rules but still be given a spot where he is looked up to, all because he can play a game...
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8009
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • He got $260 up front, and the remaining $600k is payable every year over the life of the contract. That's fair.

    I love how we all judge kids. Kids are kids and make stupid decisions. Except for ivotuk, apparently?
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9925
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I just read the whole thread, and honestly I'm surprised at how wound up people have gotten over this. I just don't see the big deal. The Tweetybirds invested a 3rd round draft pick in the guy. If he busts, they're out that 3rd round pick -- not chump change. Given his history, there's a better than average chance that he is going to cost them a roster spot during games -- also not chump change. They'd be idiots not to take whatever steps they deemed necessary to protect their investment and mitigate the possibility of future damages based on the increased risk.

    This isn't about punishing him for past "stupid decisions", and it's not about offering a "substandard contract" or anything else. It's about negotiating and protecting their interests. It's a simple fact that Mathieu just doesn't have much negotiating leverage. The CBA took care of most of it, and what little there otherwise would have been went up in smoke over the past several years.

    He got a nice signing bonus. Does that make you happy, those of you who thought he should get a guarantee of some sort?
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • I dont know, BlueTalon. I just am going to always go in favor of the guy risking bodily harm, for my amusement, over Bidwell. Maybe I'm odd that way, but that's me.

    And, just as the Cards have a right so does every player. They have the right to negotiate equal to, or maybe even above their peers. Again, you cant look at the dollar amount, look at it relatively. You'd want fair based on your peers, in your profession, just like Honey Badger.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9925
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I AM looking at it relatively. There is no perspective from which rewarding the guy with a guaranteed contract makes any sense whatsoever, except Mathieu's and his agent's and a bunch of NETers'.

    I'm not begrudging him the right to negotiate. I'm saying he has no leverage in negotiations. He can WANT the same as what all his peers are getting, but he didn't DO the same things they did to get to that position. The rest of them busted their butts, and managed to not get kicked out of school for multiple drug violations. The Tweeties aren't punishing him for his past, he's doing that all by himself. The Tweeties are protecting their own future as best they can given the circumstances.

    I'm not a Bidwill fan, but I'm not swayed by the "bodily harm" argument either. There's nothing about it that implies the Cards or any other team shouldn't protect their own interests when dealing with knuckleheads.

    Look at it this way. If you were his peer, and you busted your ass to play for four years at the same college and graduate, would you look at his situation and think, "Gee, I hope he gets what I get"? Or would it be more like "WTF? I busted my ass and kept my nose clean, and this druggie gets the same as what I get? I deserve more than him!"
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:I AM looking at it relatively. There is no perspective from which rewarding the guy with a guaranteed contract makes any sense whatsoever, except Mathieu's and his agent's and a bunch of NETers'.

    I'm not begrudging him the right to negotiate. I'm saying he has no leverage in negotiations. He can WANT the same as what all his peers are getting, but he didn't DO the same things they did to get to that position. The rest of them busted their butts, and managed to not get kicked out of school for multiple drug violations. The Tweeties aren't punishing him for his past, he's doing that all by himself. The Tweeties are protecting their own future as best they can given the circumstances.

    I'm not a Bidwill fan, but I'm not swayed by the "bodily harm" argument either. There's nothing about it that implies the Cards or any other team shouldn't protect their own interests when dealing with knuckleheads.

    Look at it this way. If you were his peer, and you busted your ass to play for four years at the same college and graduate, would you look at his situation and think, "Gee, I hope he gets what I get"? Or would it be more like "WTF? I busted my ass and kept my nose clean, and this druggie gets the same as what I get? I deserve more than him!"


    To me how he got there is irrelevant. He was deemed a 3rd round pick by a team taking into consideration all of his transgressions. If at the point their pick came up he didn't meet their requirements for how players picked at that spot are paid then they shouldn't have drafted him.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1093
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


  • He was talented enough and had shown enough to get picked in the 3rd round, so he has earned something. He should get paid similarly to other 3rd round picks with the same amount of guaranteed money.

    Here are the two perspectives that make sense:

    Draft him in the 3rd and pay him similarly to other 3rd round picks, both in pay and structure.
    Don't draft him in the 3rd round.

    That's it.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2835
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • If I didn't want to pay him the going rate, I wouldn't draft him in the 3rd round. Either he is worth a 3rd round pick or he isn't. Those decisions aren't just based on talent. You have to factor in everything.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1093
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


  • BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.


    I'd be interested to see what you would actually say if it was you receiving the checks. Not being a smartass (okay, a little), you'd have a different perspective. No one takes less, willingly, than their peers. Unless they have to. And, in a negotiation, Mathieu didn't have to.

    Anyone who says different is lying.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9925
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I have been in a situation where I represented a gamble for the organization signing me, and I did take less than my peers. I didn't want to. I simply didn't have any leverage in that situation. My choice came down to taking the deal or walking away, and I wanted the deal more than I wanted to walk away.

    I never said anything about Mathieu willingly accepting less than his peers -- and the fact is that he won't get any less than his peers if he keeps his nose clean. That's what's ridiculous to me about this situation. You guys are talking like he is actually going to be paid significantly less than his peers, when that's not the case at all. (He even gets a bonus, which is guaranteed money.) The difference is that he has a track record that makes him less than trustworthy, and the Tweeties want to ensure his good behavior as best they can by giving him a strong financial incentive. He only makes less than his peers if he's a bonehead.

    Mathieu isn't holding any cards here. If the Tweeties are smart, they will either offer a contract with no guarantees other than a signing bonus, or any guarantees will have drug-related nullification clauses. Mathieu can choose to play hardball if he wants, but ultimately his choice will be to take the deal or sit out. Maybe he pulls a Crabtree, where he sits out long enough to make a point, and ends up signing a contract that has a tiny little guarantee in it so he and his agent can say he won. (I would absolutely love to see this scenario!)
    Last edited by BlueTalon on Sun May 26, 2013 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.

    I wouldn't draft him in the 3rd round if I wasn't comfortable giving him a typical 3rd rounder deal. Either you grab him worried others might snatch him up and pay the price, or you wait and take the risk and see if he's there where you feel comfortable. I don't see a lot of complexity in not having your cake and eating it, too.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2835
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Your position seems theoretical to me, in an ideal-world sort of way. As far as I know, the CBA governs the rookie pay scale, but doesn't say anything about rookie contract guarantees, which leaves them entirely within the realm of negotiation. What should happen, in your opinion, is neither what should happen or will happen, in my opinion.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:I have been in a situation where I represented a gamble for the organization signing me, and I did take less than my peers. I didn't want to. I simply didn't have any leverage in that situation. My choice came down to taking the deal or walking away, and I wanted the deal more than I wanted to walk away.

    I never said anything about Mathieu willingly accepting less than his peers -- and the fact is that he won't get any less than his peers if he keeps his nose clean. That's what's ridiculous to me about this situation. You guys are talking like he is actually going to be paid significantly less than his peers, when that's not the case at all. (He even gets a bonus, which is guaranteed money.) The difference is that he has a track record that makes him less than trustworthy, and the Tweeties want to ensure his good behavior as best they can by giving him a strong financial incentive. He only makes less than his peers if he's a bonehead.

    Mathieu isn't holding any cards here. If the Tweeties are smart, they will either offer a contract with no guarantees other than a signing bonus, or any guarantees will have drug-related nullification clauses. Mathieu can choose to play hardball if he wants, but ultimately his choice will be to take the deal or sit out. Maybe he pulls a Crabtree, where he sits out long enough to make a point, and ends up signing a contract that has a tiny little guarantee in it so he and his agent can say he won. (I would absolutely love to see this scenario!)

    It's not about what his actual contract came out to be, I've been arguing just on the principal that it's silly for a team to use a reasonably high pick on a player and then think they can leverage him like a UDFA. You have a choice not to have guaranteed money tied to a risky guy, to not have to pay him the type of guaranteed money typical of a 3rd round pick, that choice comes....in the 3rd round. Don't pick him.

    The obvious difference between your situation and this is that your rights to be hired weren't drafted by that company, you may have not been in a position of strength, but you were free to go elsewhere if you didn't like their terms. Mathieu isn't, he's working in a cartel of 30 businesses that collude to fix the market, etc. If he were an UDFA, you'd probably see none of us complaining about what the Cards wanted to do. That's exactly what UDFA is for, low risk moves for guys that have a lot of red flags.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2835
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • BlueTalon wrote:Your position seems theoretical to me, in an ideal-world sort of way. As far as I know, the CBA governs the rookie pay scale, but doesn't say anything about rookie contract guarantees, which leaves them entirely within the realm of negotiation. What should happen, in your opinion, is neither what should happen or will happen, in my opinion.

    That's fine. I think if you want to make an investment, make the investment. Don't draft a guy in a range you aren't comfortable with.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2835
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Mathieu is free to go elsewhere too. He can even play football if he wants to. He just isn't going to do it in the NFL this year if he chooses not to sign his deal with the Cards, or with a team that trades for his rights.

    Is it fair? No. Is it collusion? Yes. But the CBA makes it legal, and until the CBA dictates what guarantees contracts will have, then what guarantees they should have will be dictated by other things.


    I understand your principled argument. And I like principled arguments. I just think this is a case of conflicting principles.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:Mathieu is free to go elsewhere too. He can even play football if he wants to. He just isn't going to do it in the NFL this year if he chooses not to sign his deal with the Cards, or with a team that trades for his rights.

    Is it fair? No. Is it collusion? Yes. But the CBA makes it legal, and until the CBA dictates what guarantees contracts will have, then what guarantees they should have will be dictated by other things.


    I understand your principled argument. And I like principled arguments. I just think this is a case of conflicting principles.



    He signed his deal, no?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9178
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:He signed his deal, no?

    Quite possibly. I haven't been paying attention.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington



Previous


It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:05 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online