Subzero717
Well-known member
I don't see anything wrong with it. Matter of fact I would probably do the same.
Hawknballs":sp7vxnjt said:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.
If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.
You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.
If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.
Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.
Hawknballs":2e2k4y99 said:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.
If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.
You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.
If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.
Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.
Hawknballs":1ykrcfcs said:He shouldn't be pre-penalized by the team that drafts him for things he *might* do wrong in the NFL, and it's not that teams place to punish him for past crimes.
Hawknballs":1rtxkjrs said:the problem with your widget example is that you make it sound as if the customer has a choice, that's my issue here. Being drafted shouldn't be a net "punishment". There is no way of knowing if Matheiu would have been drafted with the very next pick. We will never know, because he was drafted by the cardinals and then offered a sub-standard contract. As I stated there are a number of ways they could and will build drug-testing policies into his contract. Starting off with a 0 guarantee contract is just a weak move by an intimidated organization trying to overcompensate. How many millions have the dumped into bad QB play, but they are going to cheap out on a guy who's been nothing but a playmaker on the field but likes to smoke weed? Unnecessary over-reaction by an insecure franchise. If that is the way you need to do business, don't draft questionable guys.
Also, I have no 'anger'. . . not sure where that assumption came from. I just think it's a petty move by the cards ownership. That doesn't make me angry.
Hawknballs":o75n021j said:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.
Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?volsunghawk":nff88amr said:Hawknballs":nff88amr said:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.
You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.
ClumsyLurk":1g5e6gi0 said:Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?volsunghawk":1g5e6gi0 said:Hawknballs":1g5e6gi0 said:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.
You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.
Hawknballs":3ejh0ol8 said:a signing bonus is guaranteed money. That's pretty m uch what we're talking about. There are any number of bonuses that count as guaranteed money once the requirements of the bonus are met, one of them is signing, others are roster bonuses for being on the team at a certain date. All of which are pretty typical for rookies.
kidhawk":68o08f3n said:Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS.
Hawknballs":4zwmemq3 said:kidhawk":4zwmemq3 said:Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS.
Except that in this case you'd only be arguing on behalf of what is normal and expected, and in this case it's not called "complaining", it's called "negotiating"...but yes otherwise spot on.