Cribbs is fun to watch, and I held no personal feelings either way about the guy, but here is all you have to know about his tirade:

Cribbs has three years remaining on a six-year $6.77 million deal.

To paraphrase from Academy Award-worth "Mr. Deeds," should he give money back if he plays poorly, or gets injured? No? Then honor your damn contract!

What the hell is a contract nowadays, a suggested starting price until a player gets good? Eff that ...

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

I would say Cleveland should stand pat on there offer or maybe offer 1.8. If he doesn't want to play football for 3 years, so be it. In the end it only hurts Cribbs to holdout. Probably to a tune of 10k /day or so. Throw him on the trade block and see what we can get. What's it gonna hurt?

This is what I think is FAIR to both parties.

5 year deal worth 10 million
2 million signing bonus

2.5 million first year
1.875 million per year over final 4 years.

Bump up his bonus potential from 400k to 1m possible to achieve each season.

That would give him a little more than what they said they would pay, an additional 2m upfront, and the POTENTIAL to earn up to 2.875 million per season if he plays like he did this year.

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

They just want the same advantage the owners have.

If a player under performs his contract the owner can cut him and not have to pay the remaining years and money owed on the supposed contract.

There is literally zero risk for owners in NFL contracts outside the signing bonus. It is not like the other 3 major sports where you are stuck with under performing stars with albatross contracts because there are no guarantees.

The players just want the same opportunity to cash in when times are good or walk away to greener pastures option the owners have currently.

Why should one side be allowed to break a contract without penalty when the other can't?

IggyPride00 wrote:

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

They just want the same advantage the owners have.

If a player under performs his contract the owner can cut him and not have to pay the remaining years and money owed on the supposed contract.

There is literally zero risk for owners in NFL contracts outside the signing bonus. It is not like the other 3 major sports where you are stuck with under performing stars with albatross contracts because there are no guarantees.

The players just want the same opportunity to cash in when times are good or walk away to greener pastures option the owners have currently.

Why should one side be allowed to break a contract without penalty when the other can't?

Because the provision to end the contract in that manner is written into the contract. No one forced him to sign it (and no, being in the worse negotiating position is not some sort of duress).

IggyPride00 wrote:

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

They just want the same advantage the owners have.

If a player under performs his contract the owner can cut him and not have to pay the remaining years and money owed on the supposed contract.

There is literally zero risk for owners in NFL contracts outside the signing bonus. It is not like the other 3 major sports where you are stuck with under performing stars with albatross contracts because there are no guarantees.

The players just want the same opportunity to cash in when times are good or walk away to greener pastures option the owners have currently.

Why should one side be allowed to break a contract without penalty when the other can't?

Let me ask the same question to you. If a player got a contract raise because their last 3 seasons were terrific, then all of a sudden had two terrible seasons, why should the team be required to keep them at the same contract amount? You find me one player that will AGREE to a pay raise, BUT, if they have a bad season, will also agree to take less money for it. You won't find that, because it doesn't exist.

This isn't the NBA, MLB, etc., its the NFL, and as I've stated on the other Josh Cribbs topic, the players KNOW, before entering the league, that if they are overpaid and underperforming, that there is a chance they will be cut from that team.

I agree to take a seasonal job for the winter, and as soon as January rolls around, they notify me that I am no longer needed. Should I be pissed that I was let go? Absolutely not, because I knew the risk going into the job was there that I would only be hired on for a limited basis.

Players can whine all they want about the system, but thats the system that is in place, and to me, its more than fair. If owners threw out an offer that say, players are paid for their previous season during the current year, so, for instance, Chris Johnson would be paid for his record setting year he had this year next season, so if they have a good year, they get paid for it, but if they have a bad year, they don't, I GUARANTEE the players would never agree to this. Thats the only circumstance in which it would be fair to all parties involved. As is today, NFL players AGREE to contracts with partial guarantees, bonus clauses, and they agree to them stating that they are going to play to the best of their abilities and help the team win games. In no point of their agreements is there a place that states "but if I do x,y, or z, this contract will be increased by x % that I deem to be fair."

If they like the NBA structure, or the MLB structure better, then go play those sports. If they don't like only making 600k a year, or 5 mil a year, whatever the situation may be, then find a normal career to partake in. Nobody in the NFL was blindsided by the policies in place.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

IggyPride00 wrote:

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

They just want the same advantage the owners have.

If a player under performs his contract the owner can cut him and not have to pay the remaining years and money owed on the supposed contract.

There is literally zero risk for owners in NFL contracts outside the signing bonus. It is not like the other 3 major sports where you are stuck with under performing stars with albatross contracts because there are no guarantees.

The players just want the same opportunity to cash in when times are good or walk away to greener pastures option the owners have currently.

Why should one side be allowed to break a contract without penalty when the other can't?

Because the provision to end the contract in that manner is written into the contract. No one forced him to sign it (an no, being in the worse negotiating position is not duress).

I understand that, but we are going to see this situation with Cribbs as a microcosm of why the league is heading to a major labor problem in 2011 when the owners come back to the bargaining table pleading poor.

The players are finally catching on to the fact that the system is designed to screw them as they get all the downside potential with almost no upside.

The lack of guarantees in player contracts will be an issue in the next CBA, as this situation happens with tons of players all around the league and it is not right.

IggyPride00 wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

IggyPride00 wrote:

players want to treat their contracts like the stock market. except when their performance bottoms out, they won't accept their value to decrease.

They just want the same advantage the owners have.

If a player under performs his contract the owner can cut him and not have to pay the remaining years and money owed on the supposed contract.

There is literally zero risk for owners in NFL contracts outside the signing bonus. It is not like the other 3 major sports where you are stuck with under performing stars with albatross contracts because there are no guarantees.

The players just want the same opportunity to cash in when times are good or walk away to greener pastures option the owners have currently.

Why should one side be allowed to break a contract without penalty when the other can't?

Because the provision to end the contract in that manner is written into the contract. No one forced him to sign it (an no, being in the worse negotiating position is not duress).

I understand that, but we are going to see this situation with Cribbs as a microcosm of why the league is heading to a major labor problem in 2011 when the owners come back to the bargaining table pleading poor.

The players are finally catching on to the fact that the system is designed to screw them as they get all the downside potential with almost no upside.

The lack of guarantees in player contracts will be an issue in the next CBA, as this situation happens with tons of players all around the league and it is not right.

then maybe instead of throwing demands to his new boss, he should just shut his mouth and wait til after they solve whatever issue it is at hand with the CBA

Couldn't agree more. He's under contract. He signed that contract. Too bad if you don't like it anymore.

Go sit out if you want.

thedynasty1998 wrote: Couldn't agree more. He's under contract. He signed that contract. Too bad if you don't like it anymore.

Go sit out if you want.

+1

He has options.
1.Play for the contract he signed
2. Accept the new offer
3. Be a bitch, whine a little more, and either get traded, or, sit out the remaining 3 seasons and not take your contract at all.
4. Be a respectful person, approach Holmgren and Co. in a professional manner, and ask for a sit down meeting, and use that professionalism to get yourself an offer a little closer to where you want it to be.

If I under perform, I'll get fired too. If I over perform, a bonus or raise...welcome to reality Cribbs. They're offering you a raise. You can quit, or take it.

He should hit up STO and see if they will pay him the difference to bring back Josh's Cribbs

You can say what you want about the players knowing how contracts work, but they are also handicapped by a system where the owners and teams have a distinct advantage. What should a player do, take a hard line and NOT accept a contract under NFL provisions? Where will that get him?

Normally I dislike players holding out, but the way the NFL recycles players and how quickly jobs close and roster spots are filled, I don't blame a guy for milking it for everything he can when his value is the highest. Not only is Cribbs' value the highest it has ever been, the Browns are at one of the lowest points they have been. It makes perfect sense for him to be dong this right now.

I understand both sides of the issue. Sure he should honor the contract he signed, but the fact of the matter is a precedent has been set, and he is absolutely being lowballed considering the production of other similar players vs. what they get paid to his own contract.

I think he's taking things too far considering how early on it is, but I totally understand his frustration. The contract issue has been going on since before last year.

Azubuike24 wrote: You can say what you want about the players knowing how contracts work, but they are also handicapped by a system where the owners and teams have a distinct advantage. What should a player do, take a hard line and NOT accept a contract under NFL provisions? Where will that get him?

Normally I dislike players holding out, but the way the NFL recycles players and how quickly jobs close and roster spots are filled, I don't blame a guy for milking it for everything he can when his value is the highest. Not only is Cribbs' value the highest it has ever been, the Browns are at one of the lowest points they have been. It makes perfect sense for him to be dong this right now.

And the Browns brought in one of the smartest men in football that realizes that they still may need

1. A Legit QB
2. A RB, which could include having to pay Harrison to resign
3. Tight Ends
4. Wide Receivers, best case scenario, depth, worst case scenario, another starter.
5. RT
6. OL depth in general
7. Defensive End
8. Starting caliber linebackers
9. A complete overhaul in the secondary


Filling ALL of these voids are far more important than renegotiating with a man who just three years ago accepted the money he makes today.

I'm tired of hearing shit like this... "You can say what you want about the players knowing how contracts work, but they are also handicapped by a system where the owners and teams have a distinct advantage. What should a player do, take a hard line and NOT accept a contract under NFL provisions? Where will that get him?"
NFL athletes are LUCKY to be doing what they do, lets not make them out to be unlucky for playing for an organization in which the rules and policies that athletes must abide by under contract are well known before that athlete ever decides to sign any paperwork. Lets not go there. Cribbs DID NOT have to resign here. He did not have to sign a 6 year deal either. He could have signed for one season, and then tried to get a fatter wallet, but he chose not to.

Actually, teams force players to take pay cuts all the time. Every time you hear a team 'restructured' a contract, they forced the player to accept lesser pay or get cut. A player knows he has no value on the open market if he's on the down slope of his career and will rather take a pay cut to stick with a team who still wants to pay him than to contend on the open market.

Besides, most huge contracts you see are backloaded. The team intends to 'restructure' the contract before the big dollar years come due. That 6-year $60 million deal may have $10 milion due the last year. There's no way a team is going to pay it. Either they'll restructure, or cut the player.

So, yes, the team can force a player to 'give back' some of the money in the contract. In the NFL, the contracts aren't guaranteed, so the Browns could cut Cribbs tomorrow and not owe him one more cent. And the Browns are perfectly capable of doing so, if they were to choose.

Just because it's in the standard CBA the league has with the players doesn't mean it's right, and will be a major sticking point when the CBA is renegotiated. Plus, if they make all contracts guaranteed, you'll see signing bonuses disappear entirely, as the entire contract would be paid regardless.

But, we see that in MLB, NBA, etc and I don't want to see that. But, if a team can force a player to take a pay cut, a player should be able to force a team to pay more.

The $1.1/yr average Cribbs is getting is grossly underpaid for the production he's given to us from the day he signed it. I don't think even in his wildest dreams he'd be as successful as he has been in the NFL. He was undrafted, hanging on and desparate his rookie year. He has a good season, and the Browns offer him 'big money' that an unrafted rookie would be a fool to turn down. But now with all he does, he's grossly underpaid and he knows it. The league knows it.

And the worst part of all is that Cribbs has been offered to renegotiate his deal for the past two years and each time he's told to just let your play on the field be your argument for a raise. And each time, he's told to just postpone it a little longer.

When he signed the deal, he wasn't expecting to be returning punts, playing wildcat, playing adhoc receiver, running back, etc.

Here's a scenario: Tom Brady signed a 3-year $864,000 deal when he was drafted in the sixth round. That is roughly $280k a year. He won the Super Bowl in his second season. Are you actually arguing that Tom Brady should've been told "That's the contract you signed, live with it" in the 2002 season? Rather than getting an immediate rewrite and throwing out his third year of his original contract?

Sure, that's an extreme example, but the big thing I think all of you forget is that if Cribbs doesn't get a deal close to what he thinks he deserves, and DOES stay here for the last three years of his deal, and is still producing through the end fo his contract that he would have even one thought as to resigning with the team?

And do you think other players in the NFL who see this go on would not question whether to go to the Browns instead of another team with a similar offer if this is how they treat their players? That the team will lowball them, enslave them in a long term contract no matter how great they become, and then expect them to simply to 'take it' because 'that's what you signed'.

As for people moaning about how this will set a precedent for other players demanding reworked deals the team can say: "You're not Josh Cribbs. Outperform your contract like he did his and we'll talk about it."

The salary cap this year was set at roughly $127 million. Cribbs (pro-rated bonus and all) was about $1.1 million of that. There's 53 other players on the team. So, they get roughly $2.4m/each. Cribbs, gets $1.1m.

See where this is going? How is $1.4m anywhere close? Even prorating that $2m bonuses over the six plus the $1.4m/yr still brings us only to about $1.75m/year the last three years.

Stop comparing this to a 'raise', stop comparing this to what he made on his contract last year. He's a CONTRACTOR, not an EMPLOYEE. He wasn't HIRED, his services were requested and a contract was written. One in which he does far more now than he was first signed to do. He was underpaid by year 2 of the deal.

And the thing with Cribbs is he has so much more untapped potential. We've realized he's not a WR (route running is not his forte, improvisation is). But as a RB/Wildcat QB he's got talent. And we have him. The Browns finally have a player the rest of the league fears. And we want to discard him because he's asking for $2-$3m a year.

Sykotyk

h2thaizzo wrote: This is what I think is FAIR to both parties.

5 year deal worth 10 million
2 million signing bonus

2.5 million first year
1.875 million per year over final 4 years.

Bump up his bonus potential from 400k to 1m possible to achieve each season.

That would give him a little more than what they said they would pay, an additional 2m upfront, and the POTENTIAL to earn up to 2.875 million per season if he plays like he did this year.

This.

No one can expect someone to work for 3 years considerably under market value and not be disgruntled. I know he signed a contract, but the circumstances have changed...and this situation is not new. Cribbs asked for a new contract last year, and when they told him not yet, he dutifully went out and exceeded expectations again, without a whimper during the season. Without a doubt, this has been handled poorly by both parties here, but I have to put most of the blame squarely on the organization. You have to do right by your employees or else they just aren't going to work hard for you.


Go ahead and try to hold him to his contract.....that's a lose/lose scenario.

when cribbs signed his contract he was just a special teams player , now he is playing wide out and he is the browns wildcat back. his duties have increased, so his pay should also. furthermore when a player wants a raise they call it renegotiaing. . but when the team wants him take less money its called restructuring. how many players have taken "restructured" deals with the promise of taking a cut now and making more money later so the team can sign some free agents. only to find out when later comes and its time to get their money they are cut. JUST PAY THE MAN. he has out played his contract.

Sykotyk wrote: Actually, teams force players to take pay cuts all the time. Every time you hear a team 'restructured' a contract, they forced the player to accept lesser pay or get cut. A player knows he has no value on the open market if he's on the down slope of his career and will rather take a pay cut to stick with a team who still wants to pay him than to contend on the open market.

Besides, most huge contracts you see are backloaded. The team intends to 'restructure' the contract before the big dollar years come due. That 6-year $60 million deal may have $10 milion due the last year. There's no way a team is going to pay it. Either they'll restructure, or cut the player.

So, yes, the team can force a player to 'give back' some of the money in the contract. In the NFL, the contracts aren't guaranteed, so the Browns could cut Cribbs tomorrow and not owe him one more cent. And the Browns are perfectly capable of doing so, if they were to choose.

Just because it's in the standard CBA the league has with the players doesn't mean it's right, and will be a major sticking point when the CBA is renegotiated. Plus, if they make all contracts guaranteed, you'll see signing bonuses disappear entirely, as the entire contract would be paid regardless.

But, we see that in MLB, NBA, etc and I don't want to see that. But, if a team can force a player to take a pay cut, a player should be able to force a team to pay more.

The $1.1/yr average Cribbs is getting is grossly underpaid for the production he's given to us from the day he signed it. I don't think even in his wildest dreams he'd be as successful as he has been in the NFL. He was undrafted, hanging on and desparate his rookie year. He has a good season, and the Browns offer him 'big money' that an unrafted rookie would be a fool to turn down. But now with all he does, he's grossly underpaid and he knows it. The league knows it.

And the worst part of all is that Cribbs has been offered to renegotiate his deal for the past two years and each time he's told to just let your play on the field be your argument for a raise. And each time, he's told to just postpone it a little longer.

When he signed the deal, he wasn't expecting to be returning punts, playing wildcat, playing adhoc receiver, running back, etc.

Here's a scenario: Tom Brady signed a 3-year $864,000 deal when he was drafted in the sixth round. That is roughly $280k a year. He won the Super Bowl in his second season. Are you actually arguing that Tom Brady should've been told "That's the contract you signed, live with it" in the 2002 season? Rather than getting an immediate rewrite and throwing out his third year of his original contract?

Sure, that's an extreme example, but the big thing I think all of you forget is that if Cribbs doesn't get a deal close to what he thinks he deserves, and DOES stay here for the last three years of his deal, and is still producing through the end fo his contract that he would have even one thought as to resigning with the team?

And do you think other players in the NFL who see this go on would not question whether to go to the Browns instead of another team with a similar offer if this is how they treat their players? That the team will lowball them, enslave them in a long term contract no matter how great they become, and then expect them to simply to 'take it' because 'that's what you signed'.

As for people moaning about how this will set a precedent for other players demanding reworked deals the team can say: "You're not Josh Cribbs. Outperform your contract like he did his and we'll talk about it."

The salary cap this year was set at roughly $127 million. Cribbs (pro-rated bonus and all) was about $1.1 million of that. There's 53 other players on the team. So, they get roughly $2.4m/each. Cribbs, gets $1.1m.

See where this is going? How is $1.4m anywhere close? Even prorating that $2m bonuses over the six plus the $1.4m/yr still brings us only to about $1.75m/year the last three years.

Stop comparing this to a 'raise', stop comparing this to what he made on his contract last year. He's a CONTRACTOR, not an EMPLOYEE. He wasn't HIRED, his services were requested and a contract was written. One in which he does far more now than he was first signed to do. He was underpaid by year 2 of the deal.

And the thing with Cribbs is he has so much more untapped potential. We've realized he's not a WR (route running is not his forte, improvisation is). But as a RB/Wildcat QB he's got talent. And we have him. The Browns finally have a player the rest of the league fears. And we want to discard him because he's asking for $2-$3m a year.

Sykotyk

This.

If Cribbs has any brains at all he will get the hell out of Cleveland !