Okay I relize this is a Cardinal site but I got a topic that kinda gets me upset. Maybe some of you knowedgable sport junkies can shed some different light on it . Or at the very least it will atleast allow me to vent a little bit
. Victor Cruz is a golden example. The young guy had a great year. 3rd in the league in receiving yards, ect. Okay he is pretty much demanding for more money. So I don't have a problem with athletes wanting more money if they outplay there contract IF and only IF when they under perform they give a little bit back. !!!!!

bjtut wrote: Okay I relize this is a Cardinal site but I got a topic that kinda gets me upset. Maybe some of you knowedgable sport junkies can shed some different light on it . Or at the very least it will atleast allow me to vent a little bit
. Victor Cruz is a golden example. The young guy had a great year. 3rd in the league in receiving yards, ect. Okay he is pretty much demanding for more money. So I don't have a problem with athletes wanting more money if they outplay there contract IF and only IF when they under perform they give a little bit back. !!!!!

Never going to happen..........moving on (Farmers Ins. Prof.)

The NFL is completely different so your logic here is, well, nonexistent.  NFL contracts are nonguaranteed.  That means they can - and will - cut you if your underperform your salary.

Especially for running backs, where the average NFL career is three years and you get beat up on every play, I have no problem whatsoever with NFL players trying to get whatever they can out of the game before they blow out a knee or suffer a long-term head injury, etc.  It is an entirely different ballgame.  As long as the owners want nonguaranteed contracts, this will be commonplace (and rightfully so).

And on the giving money back thing...why do you care?  Do you really want billionaire NFL owners to have a few extra pesos rather than a player who was signed to a contract (presumably based on estimated worth) but just had a down (or hurt) year?

Back in the olden days, the salary of MLB players were indeed cut if they had a bad year.  In "Ball Four", Bouton writes about how Maris tailed off after 1961 and "should have been cut" but he had - according to Bouton - a five-year, no-cut contract and they couldn't - which is probably why they traded him as soon as the contract (which covered 1962 through 1966, I presume) was up.

Bouton himself was cut from $30,000 in 1965 to less than 20K by 1968.  The Yankees tried to cut Mantle's salary after 1957 because he didn't win the Triple Crown that year as he did in 1958.

Of course (as someone will invariably point out) the good old days were anything but - but the system in place today isn't much better; the players (and their agents) have most of the power.  The only weapon the owners really have are the non-tender route and the occasional collusion.