Adrian Peterson Reinstated

[Mothman]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't there a guaranteed portion of AD's contract? I think Kapp alluded to the fact that if all contracts were fully guaranteed the total amounts of the contracts would be a lot lower and that's completely correct.

The guaranteed part of the contract reflects the percentage of the total that the team *and player* are willing to agree to. The team gets the player's commitment to play for a certain period of time while the player gets a set amount of money that compensates him no matter what happens. The deal is completely fair, ethical, and just from the perspective of both parties, and contrary to what AD would have people believe apparently, *both sides * bear risk. If teams cut a guy early, for example, the prorated portion of any guaranteed money accelerates against the cap, which in turn provides a disincentive against cutting a player early. The fact that some teams find ways to push that hit into the early portion of the contract does not alter the fact that it is guaranteed money.

Heck, take AD's case itself. He got paid to do nothing last year and the Vikes took that hit in order to keep his contract intact. AD doesn't think the team bore risk in the deal? His *exact* situation underlines the risks to teams. He himself proves it, and yet he has the gall to go public and whine that players aren't getting a fair shake?

To answer the question at the top of your post, I think you may be missing something. Peterson didn't say teams bear no risk in these contracts. He seemed to be complaining about double standards, specifically that teams don't have to honor player contracts. They can cut players and walk away at any time but players don't have that luxury. They're locked in until the end of the contract unless they get released. It was also clear that he was specifically referring to a team's ability to approach a player and ask them to take a pay cut, even though that player has a signed agreement with the team that specifies what he should be paid.

There IS a double standard there. When teams decide they no longer want to honor a contract, they ask the player to change it or just release him. Occasionally, if it's a player fans really like (Winfield, for example), that results in some negative feedback. Just as often, if it's a player whose skills are in decline or whose production doesn't match his salary in the eyes of the public, such moves are applauded. If players want to open a discussion about changing their contract, they're often seen as whiners or "babies" who should just be grateful for what they have, shut up and honor their contract. Again, we see a double standard.

Peterson made a reasonable point about NFL contracts but, understandably, nobody wants to hear it from him. He's put himself in a terrible position to serve as any kind of spokesman or advocate for players. He's a very unsympathetic figure.

[mondry]

To answer the question at the top of your post, I think you may be missing something. Peterson didn't say teams bear no risk in these contracts. He seemed to be complaining about double standards, specifically that teams don't have to honor player contracts. They can cut players and walk away at any time but players don't have that luxury. They're locked in until the end of the contract unless they get released. It was also clear that he was specifically referring to a team's ability to approach a player and ask them to take a pay cut, even though that player has a signed agreement with the team that specifies what he should be paid.

There IS a double standard there. When teams decide they no longer want to honor a contract, they ask the player to change it or just release him. Occasionally, if it's a player fans really like (Winfield, for example), that results in some negative feedback. Just as often, if it's a player whose skills are in decline or whose production doesn't match his salary in the eyes of the public, such moves are applauded. If players want to open a discussion about changing their contract, they're often seen as whiners or "babies" who should just be grateful for what they have, shut up and honor their contract. Again, we see a double standard.

Peterson made a reasonable point about NFL contracts but, understandably, nobody wants to hear it from him. He's put himself in a terrible position to serve as any kind of spokesman or advocate for players. He's a very unsympathetic figure.

That was pretty much perfectly said imo, good post. When the NFL team no longer has a use for the player they can simply say see you later (winfield, Jennings, etc) and terminate the contract but if the player wants to leave the organization they are forced to "suck it up and play" and can't terminate the contract in the same way, how is that NOT a double standard?

[PurpleKoolaid]

Because they sign a contract, and make millions doing so. Dont sign a contract you dont understand.

[S197]

I see it as a concession rather than a double standard. By agreeing to guaranteed money, in other words, getting paid even if you do absolutely nothing, you give up your rights to a team for x amount of years. There has to be a give and take, it's pretty much the basis for a contract to be legal. A contract cannot benefit only one party.

As for paycuts, it's a part of business. If a worker makes 100 widgets per day, he's paid x sum of money. If 10 years down the road he's only making 70 widgets per day, the company will likely replace him or ask him to take a pay cut. In that respect the NFL is like any other business, at some point you need to prove your worth rather than expect to receive the same compensation for reduced production.

[Mothman]

I see it as a concession rather than a double standard. By agreeing to guaranteed money, in other words, getting paid even if you do absolutely nothing, you give up your rights to a team for x amount of years. There has to be a give and take, it's pretty much the basis for a contract to be legal. A contract cannot benefit only one party.

That's true but nobody's suggesting it should.

I apologize for bowing out of this contract talk but I'm going to because I'm not interested or informed enough to be an ongoing advocate for player rights in this thread. I'm simply saying Peterson made a reasonable point yesterday.

[DanAS]

Peterson made a reasonable point about NFL contracts but, understandably, nobody wants to hear it from him. He's put himself in a terrible position to serve as any kind of spokesman or advocate for players. He's a very unsympathetic figure.

I'd only slightly rephrase what you're saying.

Peterson is addressing a topic about which there are two legitimate sides. But he is about the worst imaginable spokesperson for the side he's taking.

Peterson needs to grab just an ounce of humility. I realize that's not the faculty one typically relies upon to become a beast of a running back, but once you are caught being a beast of a person, it's time to eat some humble pie. In his case, that means to play out your contract and grab your measly $13 million annual salary in addition to the bazillions he has already grabbed. If that means that due to an injury sustained this year, he won't get any more money in the future, then he can ask us Vikings fans to chip in and give him some charity.

[Mothman]

I'd only slightly rephrase what you're saying.

Peterson is addressing a topic about which there are two legitimate sides. But he is about the worst imaginable spokesperson for the side he's taking.

Peterson needs to grab just an ounce of humility. I realize that's not the faculty one typically relies upon to become a beast of a running back, but once you are caught being a beast of a person, it's time to eat some humble pie. In his case, that means to play out your contract and grab your measly $13 million annual salary in addition to the bazillions he has already grabbed. If that means that due to an injury sustained this year, he won't get any more money in the future, then he can ask us Vikings fans to chip in and give him some charity.

I understand the sentiment, I really do, but it's easy to make proclamations like that about how others should handle their careers. We're on the sidelines, looking at a partial picture. Maybe my view on this is skewed because I'm a freelancer but I still say it's Peterson's career and he's entitled to handle it as he sees fit. He probably doesn't believe he'll get the opportunity to play out his contract and frankly, I don't either, regardless of what happened with Jared Allen's final year. If Peterson thinks he should try to get a re-worked contract and some guaranteed money, I see no reason why he shouldn't make the attempt. Whether that attempt is successful or not, he should honor his contract by playing.

[fiestavike]

Peterson needs to grab just an ounce of humility. I realize that's not the faculty one typically relies upon to become a beast of a running back, but once you are caught being a beast of a person, it's time to eat some humble pie.

The use of the word "beast" is an interesting choice to describe discipline--even inappropriate discipline. It seems like a pretty uniquely human action, whereas the creation of so many children outside wedlock seems quite beastly, and yet elicited almost no reaction through the years.

[chicagopurple]

Not true. Many people who don't suffer from Sports Induced Myopia have loudly criticized AP and other Athletes who are running around creating hordes of illegitimate kids. A Lot of it gets ignored as holier then thou bull-hockey, in order to keep up ones absurd hero worship of entitled morons. There is very little to like about AP off the playing field. He is great on the field and LOOKS like an all-American good kid so we reflexively created that image of him. Sadly, the truth is, he is insanely irresponsible and immature in his personal life. He is a danger to everyone behind the wheel of a car, and he uses recreational drugs. On top of these fine traits, he is none too bright and dull enough not to realize it and just keep his mouth shut. Moreover, given his choice of agent, he seems to be a poor judge of character.

[fiestavike]

Not true. Many people who don't suffer from Sports Induced Myopia have loudly criticized AP and other Athletes who are running around creating hordes of illegitimate kids. A Lot of it gets ignored as holier then thou bull-hockey, in order to keep up ones absurd hero worship of entitled morons. There is very little to like about AP off the playing field. He is great on the field and LOOKS like an all-American good kid so we reflexively created that image of him. Sadly, the truth is, he is insanely irresponsible and immature in his personal life. He is a danger to everyone behind the wheel of a car, and he uses recreational drugs. On top of these fine traits, he is none too bright and dull enough not to realize it and just keep his mouth shut. Moreover, given his choice of agent, he seems to be a poor judge of character.

My point isn't to make a judgement on Adrian Peterson the person. Just like all of us I am absolutely certain he has his moral successes and failures, his human and his animal side. I just find it fascinating how people prioritize their values and judgements about those failings.

At what point the "line was drawn" for people, where they considered him a bad person is very revealing of a fundamental transformation occurring within society.

[VikingLord]

He seemed to be complaining about double standards, specifically that teams don't have to honor player contracts. They can cut players and walk away at any time but players don't have that luxury. They're locked in until the end of the contract unless they get released. It was also clear that he was specifically referring to a team's ability to approach a player and ask them to take a pay cut, even though that player has a signed agreement with the team that specifies what he should be paid.

So the player has to take the pay cut?

Teams DO have to honor player contracts every bit as much as the player does. Yes, they can terminate the contract early, but they're still on the hook for any guaranteed money that was paid even if the player didn't play/perform as expected, plus the player is free to move on elsewhere if that happens.

There IS a double standard there. When teams decide they no longer want to honor a contract, they ask the player to change it or just release him.

That is not a double standard IMHO. It's only a double standard if one looks at the right to terminate part of it, in which case even that depends on the contract the player signed. Many contracts carry opt-out clauses that allow players to exercise an early termination option. Typically those exist for rookies and younger players whose careers are more likely to be on an upward arc at the time the contract ends. It's not all one-sided. It depends on what the player negotiated before the contract was signed.

If players want to open a discussion about changing their contract, they're often seen as whiners or "babies" who should just be grateful for what they have, shut up and honor their contract. Again, we see a double standard.

I don't think public opinion should really matter here. It's a cold calculation on the part of the team *and* player when a contract is signed. The double standard you're pointing out was already addressed by free agency. Players can move between teams and sign with whomever they want. They just can't do it *whenever* they want. That does not create a double standard. Both the player and team are appropriately compensated for the risk they bear in the contract IMHO. The player is compensated through a combination of guaranteed money, contract length, and opt-out clauses. AD seems to be advocating for the right to opt-out at any time and for any reason the player chooses. If he wants that right he'll have to pay to get it because no sane team would agree to such an outlandish provision IMHO.

Peterson made a reasonable point about NFL contracts but, understandably, nobody wants to hear it from him. He's put himself in a terrible position to serve as any kind of spokesman or advocate for players. He's a very unsympathetic figure.

In this case it isn't the messenger for me - it's the message that makes no sense. I still don't see a double standard.

[Norv Zimmer]

I really don't understand his logic at all. Am I wrong to think that his current contract IS guaranteed as long as he plays? It's not like he is going to be cut or have to worry about being cut in fear of being paid too much. All he has to do is play and perform the way we all know he can and he will get 100 percent of his current contract.

[Purple bruise]

I really don't understand his logic at all. Am I wrong to think that his current contract IS guaranteed as long as he plays? It's not like he is going to be cut or have to worry about being cut in fear of being paid too much. All he has to do is play and perform the way we all know he can and he will get 100 percent of his current contract.

I would bet that most of "this" is being perpetrated by his jackhole agent that knows that he is one of two benefactors (AD being the other) that would receive monies from a new, restructured contract, which would include guaranteed money.

[Raptorman]

Peterson has a point about the contracts. I have never liked the fact that a team can fire a player at anytime for any reason. I could easily see a guaranteed portion of each player contract in the future. Think about it. If each contract had a portion that was guaranteed to be paid we would not longer have these big $40 million signing bonus's. The overall amount of money guaranteed would be about the same, just spread out among all the players on the team rather than a few. So the guys with the lower contracts would get some money as long as they made the team initially.

[Mothman]

So the player has to take the pay cut?

Teams DO have to honor player contracts every bit as much as the player does. Yes, they can terminate the contract early, but they're still on the hook for any guaranteed money that was paid even if the player didn't play/perform as expected, plus the player is free to move on elsewhere if that happens.
That is not a double standard IMHO. It's only a double standard if one looks at the right to terminate part of it, in which case even that depends on the contract the player signed. Many contracts carry opt-out clauses that allow players to exercise an early termination option. Typically those exist for rookies and younger players whose careers are more likely to be on an upward arc at the time the contract ends. It's not all one-sided. It depends on what the player negotiated before the contract was signed.
I don't think public opinion should really matter here. It's a cold calculation on the part of the team *and* player when a contract is signed. The double standard you're pointing out was already addressed by free agency. Players can move between teams and sign with whomever they want. They just can't do it *whenever* they want. That does not create a double standard. Both the player and team are appropriately compensated for the risk they bear in the contract IMHO. The player is compensated through a combination of guaranteed money, contract length, and opt-out clauses. AD seems to be advocating for the right to opt-out at any time and for any reason the player chooses. If he wants that right he'll have to pay to get it because no sane team would agree to such an outlandish provision IMHO.
In this case it isn't the messenger for me - it's the message that makes no sense. I still don't see a double standard.

If you don't see it, fair enough. As I said in my response to Landon (S197) above, I'm bowing out of the contract talk.